Gotta love that he won't even answer one simple question. F-Yeah-Chris-Matthews!

"I'm in the party of Teddy Roosevelt..."

He could also say "I'm in the party of David Duke..."

The title of this video should be "Chris Matthews absolutely destroys Republican Douche-bag."

I don't believe Chris ever put up a straw man as was suggested. The comments he made really DO seem to fall in line with what the republican party has come to represent.

Furthering my opinion that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution should be infected with swine flu. Experience it firsthand.

Ugh, c'mon Chris... "evolutionary belief and assumption"... really? Any scientist can tell you that evolution is a scientific law. That's not a "belief". That's not an "assumption". It's fact. People who don't believe in evolution either a) don't understand what it is or b) refuse to understand what it is.

"There is nothing mysterious or purposeful about evolution by natural selection; it just happens. It is an automatic consequence of simple, cold arithmetic." -- Scott Freeman, Evolutionary Analysis

Whatever, evolution is a THEORY.

I am an atheist who recognizes evolution and I share skepticism with regards to anthropogenic global warming. You can't use the associative property here to discredit the genuine scientific split on this topic. I love how the supporters have tried to make the inference that if you doubt anthropogenic global warming, you must be doing so on belief rather than reason. It clearly shows a sheepish attitude on the part of these people, to not be skeptical and do their own due diligence by looking at dissenting scientific data. Mr. God-fearing Republican isn't our official spokeperson, but you love plucking from that demographic.

If creationism is true I would really love to know WTF my wisdom teeth are for?!?

Well said X. If evolution is 'scientific theory' then what shall we say of AGW as 'science'? It is supposition based on inference and computer models built with faulty, incomplete, and partly imaginary data. I've seen the actual data. The strongest 'correlation' that has ever been made to anthropogenic C02 emissions and world climate temperatures is below +0.1. Correlations have to reach 0.3 to even be considered weak in statistical circles, and only 0.6 and higher are strong. Human C02 emissions do not correlate with planetary temperature. They never did.

Regardless, hooray for Matthews? The man is as despicable as Limbaugh, Hannity, Olberman, and all the other sell-outs. He isn't qualified to work as a page in a newspaper room, let alone pretend he's a journalist. He's a propogandist. If you find yourself cheering when a propogandist is slinging his bull then it can mean only one thing... It means that you are a brain-dead, easily manipulated lemming, dancing to the piper. Anyone who cheers a neo-lib or a neo-con shill doesn't deserve to be spat upon, even if their hair is on fire.

I really don't like when they say 'do you believe in evolution.' I don't 'believe' in it, no. But thats because there is no believe required. I simply look at the evidence presented and take that as fact. No belief required.

What they should ask is 'Do you think Evolution is fact.'


And yea, Chris just rips this guy a new asshole. The guy keeps saying that the republicans are going around the country with an all of the above package for clean air, clean energy, etc..

I'd like to ask, where was your clean air/clean energy package in the last 8 years?

Lets get this straight. It isn't about 'BELIEVING' in it. Belief doesn't matter. Fact and scientific analysis is what matters.

Science shows that evolution occurred. Science shows that there is climate change. Yes, there are unknowns, but that is where Religion and Science differ. Science admits when it doesn't know something. Religion believes it knows everything even in the absence of fact.

So I say again. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH BELIEF. It has everything to do with knowledge.

Science admits when it doesn't know something

In two letters... BS! If 'science' admitted what it DIDN'T know about climate change then they would not be saying that humans are responsible for it.

The fact of the matter is that the scientific community is for sale. They are bought and paid for by biased political interests, and they have surrendered their credibility in pursuit of funding. Most of the data the scientific community uses to support its claims regarding AGW is one hair away from being complete and utter bullcrap. Shoddy methodology and biased objectives can ONLY provide results that are is speculative the very best and routinely flawed. But that flawed research is exactly what gets peddled to the ignorant as 'fact'.

Here's how you turn the excrement that is 'global warming science' into fact. Collect political payola from special interest groups. Pay labs to perform research with pre-decided objectives. Reject/ignore all data that runs counter to your biased study design and poor controls. Write reports that cherry-pick results which favor your conclusion. Release your BS results to the press and political organizations, citing only the data you want. Allow stupid, gullible morons to act like there is 'consensus'.

Bingo. Now you have millions of lemmings that think human C02 emissions are causing global climate change. This desipte the fact that all legitimate 'scientific' and statistical facts can only say that human CO2 is (at the very most) a very minor component of a much bigger set of variables.

I repeat... If 'science' was willing to admit what it doesn't know about climate change then they would not be saying that AGW is a 'fact'. The fact that they ARE saying AGW is a fact means that they (A) aren't willing to admit they don't know the facts and (B) they are hired thugs in the information game.

I love conservative arguments against global warming, they're so hypocritical.

What evidence is there that tax cuts cause economies to prosper?

Make sure you don't use any studies funded by people whose motives can be impugned, or use methodologies I can claim are "shoddy".

Remember, correlation does not imply causation now, so don't just quote me figures and rely on synchronous movements!

It's just millions of lemmings that think high taxes stagnate economic growth, this despite the fact that all legitimate statistical facts can only say that taxes are at the very most a very minor component of a much bigger set of variables.

Therefore, anyone who cries out for tax cuts (A) aren't willing to amdit they don't know the facts and (B) they are hired thugs in the information game.

It turns out that these arguments can be used to attack anything, so long as people refuse to agree on both what the actual statistics are, and what a reasonable theory is for the way the world works.

Without agreement on that, you can just claim it's a manufactured manipulation by special interests every time.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
Whatever, evolution is a THEORY.


...and creationism is a poorly thought out, disproven hypothesis, far from reaching the level of "theory", the same goes for the "science" that can't find a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. The only possible contention one could make based on anything resembling facts would be that, possibly, the CO2 rise is not due to man, but you would have to ignore overwhelming factual evidence to believe that. (or you must believe that the factual evidence is "planted" there by Jebus to confuse the non believers.)
...religion doesn't really make it even to the level of hypothesis. The existence of god(s) is not even a theory, it is another poorly thought out, little researched, mostly disproved hypothesis. If you want to deride "theories" as unproven (which shows that you don't understand the word "theory" as you are using it, and are ignorant at the outset) then you must use the same criteria on your own thoughts, which makes religion not a theory, barely a hypothesis, more like a stinky brain fart with no factual evidence to support it.
I suppose you must be ignorant of the definition of "theory" as it relates to scientific facts, either by design or by mistake. (most likely by design) Try a dictionary. It should show you BOTH definitions of the word, and how each is properly applied.

BTW, Winstonfield_Pennypacker, science and scientists are different things. Science does not say that global warming IS caused by humans, science says overwhelming evidence shows that higher CO2 levels are most likely the cause for the rise in temperature globally, and that past data shows that a rise in CO2 levels correlates directly to rise in global temperature. Analysis shows that human created CO2 has outpaced any naturally occurring CO2 levels we can find (and using ice cores to determine gas levels AND temperature levels in ancient atmosphere has not been challenged by any serious argument). The natural inference here is that the high CO2 level, caused by man, will and has raised global temperature. You may find a "scientist" willing to make this inference verbally, but "science" does not make inferences.

Tax cuts are a non sequiter for the AGW debate. However, the general principal of research methodology apply to economic theory as well as scientific theory. Do tax cuts 'cause' economies to propser? They certainly increase economic activity, which can in turn increase tax revenue. It is a proven fact that tax hikes decrease specific economic activities. But neither can be said to be the 'sole' cause of economic prosperity or malaise. I object to tax increases on the principle that they limit personal freedom - not because I think tax cuts cause properity.

These arguments can be used to attack anything, so long as people refuse to agree on both what the actual statistics are, and what a reasonable theory is for the way the world works.

A true 'scientist' doesn't state that he has arrived at a conclusion in the absence of isolated, definitive proof. Real scientists keep thier counsel until they have ecumenical data generated from comprehensive population samples which can be reliably and repeatably duplicated when accounting for all known variables. A real scientist does not use incomplete convenience samples, or rely on computer models that ignore important known intervening variables.

And yet, that is what the entire AGW 'science' is currently based on today. AGW 'science' has no isolated proof. It doesn't use ecumenical data. It doesn't use comprehensive samples. It cannot reliably or repeatably duplicate results. It doesn't account for all known variables. It uses incomplete, flawed datasets. It entirely depends on computer models which deliberately omit key variables. It's total junk which is being treated as 'fact'.

AGW is not science that is refining a solid technique based on sound hypothesis. It is political bunk peddling itself via propoganda with the word 'science' scribbled on it in crayon.

>> ^NetRunner:
Remember, correlation does not imply causation now, so don't just quote me figures and rely on synchronous movements!

Funny, that's what the computer models on climate change are based on. Take data, multiply value with noise(the more the better), add to model mapping, wait for the end of the world. If end of the world doesn't happen, apply tweaking to ensure that it's man made.

I like my science best with a high amount of skepticism, when there is open debate from both sides. We don't have that, what we have is one side or the other being drowned out with echos of, "You're on the payroll of such and such".

Let me know when the science of climatology gets back to being science. And away from the political opportunists.

"I embrace the view that god created the heavens and the earth and all that's in them."

The older I get the more absurd something like this sounds. A grown man saying this has such a weird effect on me now. I can't believe how childish it sounds.

Here's the very, very simplistic logic I use to go ahead and be worried about reducing dependence on fossil fuels:

1. They'll run out
2. It's going to take a long time to switch to other sources of energy
3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we release an abnormal amount of it
4. Temperatures seem to be on an upward trend

Regardless of your particular theory on how the world works, I think if you agree with #1, it's a matter of when not if we switch away from fossil fuels.

I think if you agree with #2, you think it's probably a good idea to work on it now, rather than later.

I think if you graduated from high school with a passing grade in science, you agree with #3.

I think only a minority of scientists look at climate data and disagree with #4, and non-experts who disagree are cherry-picking.

Of those statements, I only really expect disagreement on the last one.

The problem I have with global warming deniers is that they propose no particular way to tackle any of those 4 propositions at all, except to deny their significance.

To me, that seems entirely irrational unless you have a fully-formed and rigorous alternative theory that conclusively proves that fossil fuels will never be exhausted, that massive amounts of CO2 won't increase the planet's temperature, and that there's a good reason to think that temperature fluctuations that are non-anthropogenic won't negatively impact humans.

I've never seen one of those offered, just bitching about how the books have been cooked, which would be quite the impressive conspiracy if true.

Winstonfield_Pennypacker... you talk a big game but you don't say anything.

Do a search on ISI Web of Science. Find me 1 paper on which presents evidence that the globe is not warming, or evidence against anthropogenic global warming. Don't give me a website, give me a peer reviewed paper.

Nothing?

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by critical_d.