Follow the link to the title of this post to view the interactive “A to Z Guide” pictured above. The Union of Concerned Scientists has produced a wonderful interactive chart that documents all the ways the current Administration has interfered with Science. I ask any scientist out there reading this who has not already signed up, please sign the Union of Concerned Scientists’ — Scientists Call to Action: Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking.
Peter Nuhn
Generations of ServiceMurderer Dies in PrisonSomething OldSomething NewSo Help Me Nobody -- Court affirmationsSix Myths about MMOHSeparation of Church and State, A RebuttalSchool Prayer FAQsSchool Prayer Decision (Madalyn Murray O'Hair)Spirits, Souls, and ClonesSponsor the ShowSusan B. AnthonyTestimony to US Civil Rights CommissionTexas State PageThe 10C's V. NeutralityThe Atheist: Madalyn's BiographyThe Battle is JoinedThe Battle of PhiladelphiaRushdie Missing from Book FairRock of Ages and the Age of RocksRobert OwenMythicist PrizeNativity - The origins of the Birth of JesusNazareth, Faith, and the Dark OptionNo More Ham -- A look at several Black Atheist LeadersNoahs Flood -- DebateOdd InquiriesOn WeddingsOther Gods that Look a LOT Like JesusPledge of AllegiancePledge of Allegiance - Dave's LetterPre-Christian Christmas Stories with Other GodsRaising Children Without GodRed Herring Rushdie IRed Herring Rushdie IIReligion Tax Office OpenedRoadside CrossesRobert G. Ingersoll The Black Atheists of The Harlem RenaissanceThe Cons of Charitable ChoiceTo Bash or Not to BashTom Cruise Pushes for FBI Funding for ScientologyTop Ten Atheist MythsVolunteers NeededWas Jesus a Jew?Was Jesus InventedWatch the Words!Wedding VowsWhat is the object of life? by Grant AllenWhat is Wrong with a Few Harmless Prayers?What to ask Preachers and MissionariesWhere Jesus Never WalkedWhite House Expands Faith-Based InitiativesWho are the freethinkers?Why I am an Infidel: Luther BurbankWhy is Religiosity so Hard to CureWhy the Truth About Nazareth is ImportantTill Death Do Us Part?Thomas Alva Edison: An Introduction by Frank Zindler Thomas Alva Edison: 1911 Columbian InterviewThe Creator BillThe DisappearanceThe Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and The IlluminatiThe Final Taboo: Electing AtheistsThe Good Old DaysThe Hon. Atheist Governor: Culbert L. Olson.The Inconsistency of TheismThe Kiwi QuestionThe Logic of Death by George J. Holyoake The Myth of Nazareth, Does it Really Matter?The Question of Atheists HospitalsThe Roots of AtheismThe School Prayer DecisionThe Science of CreationismThe Wild World of CreationismTheopolitics of the Rushdie CaseThomas Alva Edison 1910 NYT InterviewWinning an Unwinnable DebateChristianity, Its Nature and Influence on Civilisation by Charles Watts Christians in UniformCircuit Court Rules for "Aphorisms"Congress Rushes to preserve Clergy Tax BreaksContradictions in the BibleConvencion en espanolConvention 2010 ScheduleCourt Probing Parsonage TaxCowardice of the WestCreation Science and the FACT of EvolutionCreationism: Reversing ScienceCreator Bill TextDave's Favorite Biblical InconsistenciesDebate: Is Creationism Science (Zindler / Gish)Did Jesus Exist?Edwin C. Walker: American AtheistErnestine Rose: A Troublesome FemaleCharles WattsCase is Solved12 Further Fictions from the NTA Declaration of Mental Independence, by Robert Owen Abner KneelandAgainst the 10 Commandments in PublicAgnosticism: The Basis for AtheismAims and PrinciplesAlabamaAmerican Atheists Legal PhilosophyAn Atheist's Guide to MohammedanismAtheism by O'HairAtheism: Madalyn Murray O'Hair 1962 speechAtheist Director Wins Creche CaseAtheist MusiciansAtheist StationAtheist WeddingsBiblical ContradictionsBigotry Worst Against AtheistsEthics Without GodsFCC Religion HoaxMoslem Violence in BrittainInterview: Douglas AdamsJames Lick Jesus MythKeep Politics Out Of The Pulpit or Lose Tax-Exempt Status: Opinion Kentucky Homeland Security LawsuitKersey GravesLessons from The Satanic VersesmaMA Church Dismayed over DisplayMaculate Deception: The "Science" of CreationsimMangasar Magurditch Mangasarian Mary Faker Eddy -- Christian ScienceMOMormonismInaccurate Founding Father QuotesHurricane Katrina Boosts FBIGod on OUR MoneyFree WillFrom the Mouths of CreationistsFundamentalismFunerals - Dying an AtheistGeorge J. Holyoake - The last man in England tried for Atheism George J. Holyoake by Madalyn Murray O'HairGod in OUR PledgeGrant Allen How Jesus Got a LifeHang the Commandments -- All 30 of ThemHubert Henry Harrison: The Black Socrates aboutlawatheismFaith of the Founding Fathersreligionpoliticsyouth & familymilitarymediaLibraryeventsStoreJoin & Supportorphans
There is an excellent book on this very topic called “The Republican War on Science” by Chris Mooney. It is a wonderful read.
http://www.waronscience.com/home.php
Here’s a question…
Why are all of the “Global Warming” fanatics all Liberals…?
i’m curious phreedm do you think existing law is to strict.what do you think of the exemptions some get from current laws.even if you don’t believe in global warming wouldn’t it at least be prudent to enforce with vigor current law.
“I see the third main threat to individual freedom in environmentalism.”
V?clav Klaus is president of the Czech Republic. This essay is based on a speech he delivered at the Cato Institute on March 9, 2007.
http://www.civita.no/civ.php?mod=news&cat=8&id=473
reason…please give me an example
phreedm i agree that there are radicals involved but most who want to protect nature are not trying to reorganize society.nixon started the epa i wouldn’t call him a liberal.
phreedm if i recall correctly during clinton admin some older plants got extensions on when they had to comply with emission rules.sorry i have forgotten the specfics.
Evangelical Climate Initiative
http://www.christiansandclimate.org/
Contrary to the spin that Fox News and most of the religious right put on climate change, the fact of the matter is that there is no debate about the reality of climate change. It is not a liberal vs conservative issue excpet for the Bill O’Reillys and Sean Hannitys of the world who really don’t understand the scientific method in any case. The science is sound and supported by all credible scientists. Perhaps Al Gore is somewhat hystrionic about the topic but that doesn’t change the scientific consensus that climate change is real and is a direct result of human activities.
reason…one truth about most high profile environmentalists is “do as I say, not as I do”…
It’s one of my main complaints about liberals…they always see problems with the way others are living…
You know…like “privately” funding a museum in Cincinattii…
alex…there is not doubt “climates” change…
The question is, are we responsible?
Why is Mars also experiencing “global warming”?
It’s happened before and it is happening now…
China has surpased the US in pollution…yet the Kyoto treaty exempted them…
The Financial Times just revealed the hoax of “carbon credits”…
And I would disagree with your statement that “sound science” has proven global warming…
phreedm i concur with many of your points but it is in our own interest to enforce our own laws without exception.that is one reason i support gilmore for president he is a strict law&order guy.
phreedm:
That’s an excellent question. There’s absolutely no reason why this should be such a partisan issue, yet it is. Liberals are motivated by what the perceive the facts to be, and conservatives think they have a hidden agenda. That’s really and truly not the case though. The same goes for conservatives. They too are motivated by what they believe the facts are, and liberals think they are the ones with the agenda. But facts are facts, and it’s distressing and even slightly scary how opposing political views can lead to two totally different opinions on what should ideally be a strictly empirical matter.
I personally am willing to believe that the earth is warming up and that humans are partly responsible. I’m not ready yet to to buy into the Al Gore predictions of doom and gloom. They may very well come to pass… but we’ve all been wrong about these sorts of things enough times for me to be very skeptical.
That said, I do think it would be a good idea for the industrialized world to be a good deal “greener” than we currently are, especially the US. Developing countries out to be given a kind of free pass until they are able to catch up a bit.
reason:
I thought Ferd Thompson was the Law & Order guy.
phreedm do you have a i luv rudy sticker or are you sweet on the mormon.
Apple
if you vote for fred you might as well vote for the dragon lady hilary.both are hacks.
…and smoking tobacco doesn’t casue lung cancer. Just ask the scientists employeed by the major tobacco companies.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finds a greater than 90% chance that human activities are the cause of the current climate change. This finding is backed by every single credible American science academy.
The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG). Follow the money!
phreedm:
You’re right. Carbon credits are a farce.
I’m not an expert on the Kyoto protocol, but I think China might have gotten a pass because they are still every much a developing nation, despite the mega-cities that seem to be popping up on a monthly basis. Their rural poor are still living in 3rd world conditions, and the economic effects of stricter environmental controls would unfairly burden those who have almost nothing.
It’s just not fair for industrialized countries who became rich by polluting the earth to tell those who haven’t had the chance yet that they have to remain in poverty.
alex lets uphold the laws we have now and see what the effect is.
reason:
If Adam Schiff were running, he’d get my vote.
Apple it is reasonable to expect china to uphold its own laws and fulfill treaties it has ratified.
I just googled “Adam Schiff” and apparently there’s a real US congressman by that name! I was referring to the Law and Order character… The crotchety old DA that was on the show for like 10 years.
that is a good show.
reason:
When I accidentally flip the channel to TNT and they’re showing their nightly Law & Order marathons… Forget it. My evening is effectively over.
I actually contemplated buying the DVD’s, but then I realized, why bother? TNT shows like 5 episodes every night!
Apple
ain’t that the truth.
Concerned scientists have a lot to gripe about with this president. The list goes much further than global warming. Shrub is an anti-intellectual in every way. He hated his professors in college. I really have no idea how he graduated. Maybe daddy bought it for him. Maybe not, but it is hard to believe he is capable of reasoned thought. Science and politics have a rocky history with pretty much all of our presidents. I think it is about time we had a president with some science background.
Better question. Why is the right imploding?
Answer: Evangelical Lemmings.
phree whether you believe it or not isnt it better to be more enviromentally responible anyway ? So isnt it always good when we pollute less ?
Phreedm,
I’m assuming you’re actually curious and not attempting to cherry pick facts in order to support your position ? or asking questions in an attempt to mislead. A good Christian, like yourself, wouldn’t resort to such dishonest means, right?
It is fairly well known that the most likely cause of Mars? warming is due to its dust storms ? dust storms that will increase with more warming, so Mars will most likely continue to warm. NASA findings have shown that Mars’ warming trend has nothing to do with the sun “getting hotter” ? as a friend of mine tried to propose ? sun spots or increased solar activity.
And finally, what exactly does Mars? warming have to do with the earth?s? They are entirely different systems that have very little in common.
…and who cares if Mars warms? We don’t live there.
I think Phreedm was alluding to the erroneous idea that the sun is getting hotter and is heating up the earth’s atmosphere as well as Mars’ ? naturally.
I think phreedm’s larger point about Mars is that sometimes planets warm up without any assistance from humans at all (which is certainly true).
Of course that doesn’t mean that humans haven’t been a factor here on Earth. Phreedm’s just pointing out the possibility that Earth would have warmed up anyway.
(And I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with phreedm. Just trying to clarify what I think his point was.)
Phreedm said: [Why are all of the "Global Warming" fanatics all Liberals...?]
Here’s another question, asswhole. “Why are all of the ‘Buybull-Bashing Christo-fascits’ conservatives?”
I awaite your answer, Cretin.
So lets say there is only a 1% chance that humans are making a difference to the climate that will result in a catastrophe.
How much should we be willing to spend while we are unsure of the risk? Why don’t we just do a bunch of experiments and find out?
Oh, there’s only one test tube to do the experiment in? Oops!
Seems humans are not very rational when it comes to accepting a guaranteed short term pain in order to avoid the risk of a very large long term loss.
Perhaps the reason conservatives are more set against reducing CO2 emissions is that they see the industries involved as theirs. Profits will indeed be impacted strongly.
Never mind that several bad old polluters have actually found ways to make more money from the stuff they were used to just dumping in the past.
The climate of the planet has varied greatly from what has benefitted humans so well over the last few millenia. One climate scientist has published a hypothesis that we would already be in an ice age, if it hadn’t been for the methane produced in early agriculture.
If we can keep the conditions on the earth favourable to us, it would behoove us to do so. Once the test tube has been sterilised, we won’t get a second chance.