Silly, the US doesn't have any money. So it would be giving away China's money, actually.

__________________
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."-Sarah Palin, not having a clue once again about what she is talking about.

So peer-review is BS?

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb

Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.
--Albert Einstein

Not actually weighing in, since I'm not a huge expert, but peer review can be BS if:
A) The peers are ideologues, particularly exclusionary ideologues, or
B) The peers are prisoners to political correctness.

My point being peer review can be subject to bias.

__________________

He's come to save the day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

Hope to see The Avengers movie, before that happens.

Do you seriously believe that? I suspect you do. But you cannot seriously expect rational, clear thinking folks to believe that. Even a casual observer knows this not to be true.

Ever heard of Algore? It's been in all the papers.

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

Al Gore is not a scientist.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

Nice dodge. Plenty of your "non partisan" scientists consider Algore to be the leading spokesman for their cause.

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

What dodge? Al Gore is a politician, he is not a scientist. The science does not rest in any way on what Al Gore does or says. Al Gore could vanish from the face of the earth and it would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on science.

Do you even have a clue what science is?

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

The dodge where you didn't answer my original question.

Of course I don't know what science is, I'm just a dumb conservative. Everybody knows only pointy headed librurls unnerstand real science.

Attached Images

 

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

What question? Have i heard of Al gore? Do I believe that science is non-partisan?

Yes. Those are pretty stupid questions though.

Where did i say anything about understanding science? Im talking about the practice of science. There cannot be any such thing as liberal science or conservative science... it makes no sense.

But since you seem to believe the opposite perhaps you can provide us all with examples of partisan science. Indeed, im very interested to know what objective set of facts about the universe are either liberal or conservative..


Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

While it may be true that the textbook definition of "science" cannot be partisan, your argument is largely one of semantics.

If you are attempting to claim that politics, and extreme partisanship does not play a major role in what passes for "science", especially with regards to GW, then you are either incredibly naive, or incredibly disingenuous. There is no middle ground.
Hockey stick graph.

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

For those who believe that scientists are always trustworthy, and would never exaggerate or falsify information for a political cause - read this:
U.N. Overstated AIDS Epidemic

"Not with Global Warming, (Now renamed Climate Change) there is no way any scientist would let a political agenda effect his/her professional integrity."

Remember Al Gore's movie, when he was raised up by a scissorlift to show the skyrocketing estimates of CO2 levels into the 21st century? That graph was created by a scientist named Dr Michael Mann. His 'Hockey Stick' shaped graph literally rewrote climate history, eliminating the little ice age and medievil warming period and exaggerating the current climate trend. The only problem is, this graph is greatly flawed scientifically. However, scientific opposition to the Mann graph has been answered with political tricks used to legitimize the graph anyhow.
The Hockey Stick Controversy

Following the past 15 years of that scientific disagreement alone is enough to make any open-minded individual question the science of AGW.

__________________
The (almost)Great SupPackFan Quotes:
"The more times you drive over a cat - the flatter it gets!"
"Differentiating legal and illegal immigration is as critical as separating child adoption from child abduction."

Drive Bias

Of course science can be used for political purposes. That is different than saying that the validated conclusions of science are partisan. That was my only point.


If you are saying that denialists and conservatives tried to pretend that the hockey stick graph was flawed for their own political agendas, than i would agree.

Otherwise there is no evidence at all whatsoever of any political agenda in any version of the hockey stick graph. It has been held up as valid by the scientific community at large, and is corroborated by multiple different sources, including recent empirical observation of the past arctic climate.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

I think what you mean is, there is no evidence at all whatsoever of any political agenda in any version of the hockey stick graph, that you would ever accept, because it would interfere with your own partisan ideology.

I rest my case.

BTW, there is plenty of evidence, try taking the blinders off.

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

lol... is that why the only report that calls it into question is a non-peer reviewed political witch hunt conducted in the congress? Meanwhile the gold standard of scientific validation, the NAS, has affirmed it??

Seriously man, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen