What conservative policies?
When I grew up, those were fiscally responsible (not adding a trillion to the debt in one bill), pro environment (starting the epa, not trying to kill it), pro science (not claiming all science is only political conspiracy) based policies. No longer.
What does the word "conservative" even mean today? Whatever Trump says it means today, even when that contradicts what he said yesterday?

It's clear that conservative values are long ago out the window.

Dawkins is the worst spokesperson for pro-science/rational thought I've seen in my life. Guy is an offensive self-righteous asshole, and the educated/scientific community can do far better in finding someone to represent the benefits of education and/or anti-zealotry.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

I have always wanted to make a plot of federal funding for science plotted as a function of year for the last 50 years.
My suspicion is that Bush was one of the worst supporters of scientific research.
On a separate but related point, I also suspect that major contractions at government research institutions (like NIST, Argonne, Los Alamos, Lincoln labs, etc) occurred during this time, making the places older on average and thereby less apt to do cutting-edge research.
I firmly believe that funding science is correlated with economic prosperity. And that academic and government research can lead to innovation in the private sector. I think this is the primary reason I could never support a candidate that advocated the dismantling or castration of government science.

http://videosift.com/video/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-Who-s-More-Pro-Science-Repubs-or-Dems

Yes I have for the most part. Haven't watched all of them. I don't care for any of them except Ron Paul. If he doesn't get the nom, I'm voting Libertarian.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I do like him better than Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and the others. Huntsman gets props too for his pro-science statement, though he destroyed all his chances by saying it. Have you checked out the debates?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
You wouldn't vote for him. But I bet you'd like to see him win the primaries.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Nice one, Ron Paul!

I do like him better than Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and the others. Huntsman gets props too for his pro-science statement, though he destroyed all his chances by saying it. Have you checked out the debates?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
You wouldn't vote for him. But I bet you'd like to see him win the primaries.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Nice one, Ron Paul!

>> ^garmachi:

Neil DeGrasse Tyson for President!


Made me think of http://videosift.com/video/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-Who-s-More-Pro-Science-Repubs-or-Dems

You keep saying 'human CO2' as though its a different variety than 'natural' CO2. CO2 is CO2, it doesn't matter if its belched out of a volcano, out of the tail pipe of a car or the tail pipe of a cow.

When we burn carbon traps like trees, oil, and coal, we release the carbon into the air in the form of CO2. While the proportion people release is smaller than that which is naturally released, it is enough to exceed what can naturally be absorbed in combination with what is naturally released. Thus we see an increase in overall atmospheric CO2.

What do you think happens to the excess CO2? Do you think because its 'human CO2' it some how doesn't contribute to overall atmospheric CO2?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Aaaaand this is why Huntsman will not win the GOP nomination. He's an idiot who accepts the false premise that "99%" of all scientists agree that human CO2 is the cause of all climate change, and that tax & cap schemes have any prayer of doing anything about it. The real 'anti-science' camp here is not the GOP. They GOP loves science. They just hate BAD science, which is what all the AGW Flavor-Aid drinkers have on thier side.
There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what an actual scientist is talking about. "Climate change" is a generic term that only means the climate is changing. I'd say 100% of "all scientists" agree with this simple statement. The debate is NOT about whether or not Earth's climate has cycles.
But when the Warmies talk about "Climate change" they are not talking about the generic term. They pack so many other things into those two words that it becomes almost impossible to have an intelligent, reasonable, fact-based discussion with them. But you can boil their intent down.
"100% of all scientists agree that 100% of all climate change is caused by human CO2. Also, 100% of all scientists agree that the way to address climate change is by massive taxation and other big government solutions. Earth will experience catastrophic world-wide destruction which would wipe out all humanity unless we ACT NOW!"
But this is not true. Not all scientists agree that CO2 is what is driving climate change. Not even a majority agree with that position. There is no solid evidence of it. There are only theories and projections - many of which have been proven to be based on bad data and falsehoods. To say "all science" agrees with the AGW theory is total bollocks.
So it is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of "bad" science, while accepting the ACTUAL "100%" agreement in regards to overall climate changes. Climate changes. DUR. The argument is over whether (A) human CO2 has anything to do with it and (B) even IF (!!IF!!) human CO2 has anything to do with it, whether or not these massive cap & tax schemes would have any impact of value.
The GOP is not "anti-science". That is just a typical left-wing neolib pile of bologna. If anything, the GOP is more "pro-science" than any liberal is because they are less blinkered by bias and accept a variety of arguments as opposed to this lockstep groupthink neolibs try to use to shut down real analysis in the climate debate.

Aaaaand this is why Huntsman will not win the GOP nomination. He's an idiot who accepts the false premise that "99%" of all scientists agree that human CO2 is the cause of all climate change, and that tax & cap schemes have any prayer of doing anything about it. The real 'anti-science' camp here is not the GOP. They GOP loves science. They just hate BAD science, which is what all the AGW Flavor-Aid drinkers have on thier side.

There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what an actual scientist is talking about. "Climate change" is a generic term that only means the climate is changing. I'd say 100% of "all scientists" agree with this simple statement. The debate is NOT about whether or not Earth's climate has cycles.

But when the Warmies talk about "Climate change" they are not talking about the generic term. They pack so many other things into those two words that it becomes almost impossible to have an intelligent, reasonable, fact-based discussion with them. But you can boil their intent down.

"100% of all scientists agree that 100% of all climate change is caused by human CO2. Also, 100% of all scientists agree that the way to address climate change is by massive taxation and other big government solutions. Earth will experience catastrophic world-wide destruction which would wipe out all humanity unless we ACT NOW!"

But this is not true. Not all scientists agree that CO2 is what is driving climate change. Not even a majority agree with that position. There is no solid evidence of it. There are only theories and projections - many of which have been proven to be based on bad data and falsehoods. To say "all science" agrees with the AGW theory is total bollocks.

So it is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of "bad" science, while accepting the ACTUAL "100%" agreement in regards to overall climate changes. Climate changes. DUR. The argument is over whether (A) human CO2 has anything to do with it and (B) even IF (!!IF!!) human CO2 has anything to do with it, whether or not these massive cap & tax schemes would have any impact of value.

The GOP is not "anti-science". That is just a typical left-wing neolib pile of bologna. If anything, the GOP is more "pro-science" than any liberal is because they are less blinkered by bias and accept a variety of arguments as opposed to this lockstep groupthink neolibs try to use to shut down real analysis in the climate debate.

>> ^longde:

@quantumushroom In science, there is no such concept as absolute proof of anything. Any established subject can be disproven.


But even Dawkins says a god cannot be disproven anymore than it can be proven. I'm an atheist, but QM has a great point. On this site, we label religious videos with lies all the time yet if a pro-science video gets labelled lies the flood gates of wrath open.

I don't know if I personally buy Mycroft's story of just recently becoming aggravated with trolls or not, and honestly I don't care because it doesn't matter. If the majority thought differently and thought this video was actually deserving of a lie invocation, I'd doubt Mycroft would've sought QM out like he did. I don't blame MH personally. He's a great guy and a beloved Sifter. My point is we should be careful how cavalier we treat the fringe. And even though it's damn near impossible to be consistent we should try and be critical of ourselves when we aren't. I could certainly learn from my own comment here. I'm just as guilty. If not more so.

@NetRunner,

Right, in the bigger picture, conservativism and libertarianism are full of crazies.

In my case, though, I've been a supporter of Obama ever since early in his candidacy, so I think I have to be first in line to try to improve liberalism. My only values are pro-intelligence and pro-science, so I'll side with whomever most advocates for those traits.

What I do object to is what seems to be the attitude in my liberal community that liberalism doesn't need to be self-critical and try to continually decrease its error rate.

For that reason, the safest prediction seems to be that its error rate will remain at the same level. (That's why liberals in Canada were surprised to find they had elected their enemy Harper, even though they had 4 years to ponder US liberals' 2000 loss.)

Who is anti-science? There IS no science at all within the politically motivated argument that human C02 must be reduced to 'prevent' climate change. That isn't an anti science statement. That is a pro-science statement. It just happens to be pro-science AGAINST the baloney that is the man-made global warming position.

Lots of scientists agree that the climate is changing. But there is no consensus that humans (A) changed the climate or (B) could possibly stop climate change. There certainly is ZERO scientific consensus that the best way to deal with climate change is massive transfers of wealth from private citizens and companies to governments.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^Why would anyone prefer your anonymous, overtly partisan opinion over decades of research and peer review from thousands of non-partisan scientists who do this for a living? If you want to change the opinion of the pro-science crowd, you need to first change scientific consensus, so get to work.
Alternately, you could look at where your information comes from (corporate think tanks, conservative blogs, public relations firms) and try and figure what ulterior motives they might have for opposing this single, specific aspect of science.
Pro tip: The people who tell you what to think may not have your best interests at heart.


In short what I think he is saying; follow the money.

If the money comes from charitable organizations and not corporations then the science may not be politicized.

^Why would anyone prefer your anonymous, overtly partisan opinion over decades of research and peer review from thousands of non-partisan scientists who do this for a living? If you want to change the opinion of the pro-science crowd, you need to first change scientific consensus, so get to work.

Alternately, you could look at where your information comes from (corporate think tanks, conservative blogs, public relations firms) and try and figure what ulterior motives they might have for opposing this single, specific aspect of science.

Pro tip: The people who tell you what to think may not have your best interests at heart.