GOP Assault on Truth: Why Do Conserva...

GOP Assault on Truth: Why Do Conservatives Pretend They Know More About Science Than Scientists?

There are 59 comments on the www.alternet.org story from May 9, 2011, titled GOP Assault on Truth: Why Do Conservatives Pretend They Know More About Science Than Scientists?. In it, www.alternet.org reports that:

Who needs the careful application of the scientific method when congressmen with absolutely no scientific training are making decisions?

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.alternet.org.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“bar0ckalypse n0w”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#1 May 9, 2011
They don't. They've just become experts at smelling bullscat by sitting next to those surrendercrats for all those years. Conflicts of interest and independance are universal constants that apply to any discipline, from engineering to medicine. This is why you average zogby's (dem) and rasmussen's (rep) polls to find the truth. Sadly the umpires in the media chose sides too, so we are left trusting noone.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

United States

#2 May 9, 2011
LOL!




More DIARRHEA from Demosplat Iria!



Bwahahahahaha!

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

United States

#3 May 9, 2011
Iria is too stupid to realize that EVERY SAW the LIES exposed by the faux scientists emails.




Idiots like Iria DIARRHEA think al gore is a scientist!

Bwahahahahahaha!

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

United States

#4 May 9, 2011




Why are progressives so Fcuking Stupid?

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

United States

#5 May 9, 2011
EVERYONE

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

United States

#6 May 9, 2011
Despite his protestations, Obama's science policy is driven by raw politics.

One of the most significant promises that President Obama made when he came into office was that science, not politics, would drive his administration’s policies.“We will restore science to its rightful place,” Obama said, and he has repeated this in various ways on various occasions. Although he famously used this pledge to make his case for scientific research that destroys human embryos, he has most often invoked it in the context of his environmental beliefs.

“Scientific knowledge should inform decision-making,” Lubchenco said at her April 9 swearing-in ceremony.“Scientists have an obligation to communicate ... that management and policy decisions should focus on the common good and the long-term.”

But before this ceremony even took place, Obama’s administration had already begun cutting corners on its “science-based” rhetoric. Lubchenco’s very first regulatory decision in office, announced April 6, was to abandon, at least for now, her agency’s legally mandated goal to save certain New England fish-stocks. This decision was made with no scientific justification, but rather for political and economic reasons.

The Bush administration had developed a plan to end overfishing and replenish fish-stocks off the coasts of New England. The new regulations, which were to take effect this year, satisfied two major goals mandated under federal law: to replenish ten depleted stocks of New England fish by 2014, and to replenish seven other stocks on longer timeframes that stretch out to 2019 and beyond. Many of the stocks are not currently on pace to meet the deadlines set by the Stevens-Manguson Act, so the proposed regulations would have been onerous, costing the fishing industry as much as $35 million annually – about one-fifth of its total revenues.

But last week, Lubchenco drastically scaled back the Bush administration rules in order to help the fishing industry. Whether one agrees or disagrees with her decision, science is not driving it; as NOAA spokeswoman Maggie Mooney-Seus said,“the science is still the same.” Lubchenco’s downscaled rules, which will cost fishermen a mere $17.4 million per year, preserve short-term conservation goals but punt on long-term measures. They kick down the road the plans that scientists had proposed to rebuild stocks of pollock, witch flounder, Georges Bank winter flounder, and Northern windowpane.

The official NOAA explanation, contained in an economic analysis, is that the changes “are necessary to mitigate impacts on the fishing industry to the extent practicable, without fatally jeopardizing the likelihood that overfished multispecies stocks will achieve their rebuilding objectives.” Obscured by all the twenty-dollar words is the fact that Obama’s purportedly science-driven administration is overriding scientists for political reasons — in part because of the loud protestations of powerful members of Congress such as Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.).

- OUCH!-




http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227304...




FUBO!

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

United States

#7 May 9, 2011
Obama Ignores Science: Yanks Protection for Endangered Gray Wolf


"The days of science taking a back seat," Barack Obama declared upon taking office in 2009, "are over." Strong rhetoric. But – as the curious case of the no-longer-endangered gray wolf has shown – empty.

The wolf gained a brief reprieve when Obama first took office and suspended all of Bush's 11th-hour rulemaking. But less than three months later, Obama Interior Secretary Ken Salazar – himself the scion of a ranching family – did western cattlmen a solid by rubber stamping his predecessor's bunk science.

Environmentalists sued, and beat Salazar & Co. in federal court: In August 2010, a judge vacated Salazar's delisting as "a political solution" and reinstated protection for the wolf across the Rockies.

That decision was still under appeal when Congress and the administration stepped in to declare open season on the gray wolf in this April's government-shutdown-averting budget deal. Republicans, Democrats, and President Obama banded together to kick science to the curb and cripple the Endangered Species Act as a rider to an appropriations bill.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/na...



- OUCH!-



FUBO!



FU Iria Diarrhea!
TedsLiver

Oakland, CA

#8 May 9, 2011
What idiot wrote this stupid article!

“Baby Obama”

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#9 May 9, 2011
The laughing liberal wrote:
Why are progressives so Fcuking Stupid?
Lack of oxygen from Rectal-Cranial Inversion Syndrome.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

United States

#10 May 9, 2011
'Scaremongering'

Scientists Pan Obama Climate Report:'This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA'...'Misrepresents the science'

Sampling of Scientific Reactions to report:

Meteorologist:'This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA'- June 16, 2009
By Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. D'Aleo publishes www.IceCap.US

Excerpt: The report issued was the Hollywood supported NOAA CCSP report which after two rounds of comments by many scientists citing peer review reasons to change, largely ignored the comments and delivered a document even more alarmist than the UN IPCC. It starts out DAY ONE being wrong on many of its claims but goes much further to rely on climate models for 2050 and 2100 to make even more dire prognoses. This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA. They gave the administration the cover to push the unwise cap-and-tax agenda.


http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1421/Scaremonge...

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

United States

#11 May 9, 2011
Space Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Lack of oxygen from Rectal-Cranial Inversion Syndrome.
Agree. Is that why iria is so stupid too?

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

United States

#12 May 9, 2011
WAPOST FACT CHECKER:

Kathleen Sebelius’s outrageous claim that cancer patients would ‘die sooner’ under the GOP Medicare plan

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post

Secretary Sebelius made this eye-popping statement Thursday while testifying on Capitol Hill, after Rep. Rob Andrews (D-N.J) asked her a question about the Medicare plan advanced by House Republicans:“What might that cost shift and lack of guaranteed benefit mean for an oncology patient, a person with cancer? Give me an example, what it might do there.”

Her answer was strong stuff, suggesting that the GOP plan could cause people to “die sooner” if they had cancer and ran out of money. We have been critical of some of the ways Republicans have described the plan, but is this even remotely possible?
The Facts

The House Budget Committee proposal, which was developed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), would transform Medicare from a government-run health care program into a competitive market for people under the age of 55.(It would not change for people 55 and older.)

Retirees would get from the government what Ryan calls “premium support”— a set payment adjusted to inflation — and then use that money to pick from a range of plans offered by insurance companies through what is termed a Medicare exchange.(Democrats derisively term this payment “a voucher,” but the government would handle the funds.)

Sebelius’s statement sounded suspiciously like she was echoing a wrongheaded assertion by Bill Maher that the value of the premium support went for medical expenses, not an insurance policy. But her aides said that was not the case. They said she was referring to the increased out-of-pocket costs suggested by the CBO analysis, which could be a burden for seniors with little money.

But Conor Sweeney, a spokesman for Ryan, said,“There is nothing to substantiate her claims of lower life expectancies.” He pointed to other elements in the CBO’s analysis which he said undercut Sebelius’s statement, specifically that the plans would have to issue insurance to all people eligible for Medicare who applied, that plans cannot charge prohibitively high premiums and that low-income people would be provided with additional money to help with unaffordable out-of-pocket costs. Additional assistance also would be provided to beneficiaries if their health condition deteriorates.

“The premium support payments would vary with the health status of the beneficiary,” the CBO said.“In addition, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would collect fees from plans with healthier enrollees, on average, and convey the proceeds to plans with less healthy enrollees, on average, with the goal of appropriately compensating plans for the health risks of their insured population. This risk adjustment mechanism would be known as the risk review audit and would be budget-neutral.”

Richard Sorian, a spokesman for Sebelius, issued the following statement after we indicated the secretary was in line for some Pinocchios:

“In response to a specific question about a person with a Medicare voucher who runs out of money while being treated for cancer, Secretary Sebelius indicated how limited that person’s options could be. She did not suggest that the House Republican plan would cause premature death. She was only describing what can happen to seniors when they run out of resources to pay for health care.”

The Pinocchio Test

Sorian’s statement is clearly a pullback.

Sebelius could have chosen to highlight the trade-offs people might face, or questioned the vagueness of Ryan’s proposals to deal with people who can’t afford to pay their bills. Instead, she decided to present a highly inflammable comment as a statement of fact — that there was “no question” people would run out money “very quickly” and then they would “die sooner.”

She should be ashamed. 3 Pinocchio's!


Peralta de Peralta

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#13 May 9, 2011
This from the liberal whackjobs that don't know the difference between a theory and hypothesis. From the same people who censor so-called scientific journals so that even if your science is sound but politically incorrect, they refuse to publish your work. Hypocrites.
Peralta de Peralta

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#14 May 9, 2011
www.facebook.com/pages/The-Politically-Incorr...

www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-p...

reason.com/archives/1998/08/01/a-duty-to-cens...

And this is coming from the same liberals who rewrote "Tom Sawyer" and picket outside of elementary schools that don't want to put "My Two Dads" on the shelves. They aren't interested in hard science but pseudo-science that supposedly supports their agendas.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#15 May 9, 2011
Why does Topix allow Laughing Liberal to spam so many sites simultaneously? I have to scroll and scroll to see if anyone made any interesting comments. He apparently is trying to destroy the medium and the people in charge allow it. It's not like this is the first topic he has done this to.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Austin, TX

#16 May 9, 2011
Don Joe wrote:
Why does Topix allow Laughing Liberal to spam so many sites simultaneously? I have to scroll and scroll to see if anyone made any interesting comments. He apparently is trying to destroy the medium and the people in charge allow it. It's not like this is the first topic he has done this to.
AH! Another Jackass that wants CENSORSHIP. Bwahahahahaha!

Just think of all of us that see you screen name and know the post is bound to be pure lunacy. If you don't like it, skip it dummy.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Austin, TX

#17 May 9, 2011
Peralta de Peralta wrote:
www.facebook.com/pages/The-Pol itically-Incorrect-Guide-to-Sc ience/108112642545030
www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-p...
reason.com/archives/1998/08/01/a-duty-to-cens...

And this is coming from the same liberals who rewrote "Tom Sawyer" and picket outside of elementary schools that don't want to put "My Two Dads" on the shelves.

They aren't interested in hard science but pseudo-science that supposedly supports their agendas.
GREAT POINTS!!!


Scumbag-0-crats are hopeless.

“"I'm A Great American!"”

Since: Sep 08

Obama Nation! USA! USA!

#18 May 9, 2011
Don Joe wrote:
Why does Topix allow Laughing Liberal to spam so many sites simultaneously? I have to scroll and scroll to see if anyone made any interesting comments. He apparently is trying to destroy the medium and the people in charge allow it. It's not like this is the first topic he has done this to.
Perhaps Topix is being kind to the mentally ill when it allows the laughing lobotomy to spam. It's amazing Topix finds a few advertisers to post next to his tripe. It's good to know which businesses are not on the ball...
Frank Lee Plain

Sugar Land, TX

#19 May 9, 2011
Climate change is a fact. No argument even exists among legitimate scientists: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100831...
Frank Lee Plain

Sugar Land, TX

#20 May 9, 2011
Fortunately, some Republicans are sensible enough to trust facts presented by scientists more than opions stated by Glenn Beck:
http://plainhonesttruth.blogspot.com/2010/12/...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

James Inhofe Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News US Sen. Inhofe OK after weather forces him to l... Jul '16 Hostis Publicus 1
News GOP chairman intensifies fight with White House... (Dec '15) Dec '15 goonsquat 10
News On climate change, Republicans are truly except... (Dec '15) Dec '15 serfs up 3
News Sen. Inhofe's 81st Birthday Present: Senate Vot... (Nov '15) Nov '15 Patriot AKA Bozo 1
News Global warming deniers unimpressed with pope's ... (Jun '15) Aug '15 Earthling-1 126
News Pope Francis Expected To Blame Global Warming O... (Jun '15) Jul '15 don t drink the k... 6
News James Inhofe to Pope Francis: Shut up with your... (Jun '15) Jun '15 2all 42
More from around the web