Santorum: Democrats are anti-science

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well, I don't think anyone is really pro- or anti-science. That's not really a thing per se. I will only say that most people use science when it supports their cause and dismiss it when it goes against them, whether they are Democrats or Republicans.

Well, yes, 'science' derives its legitimacy from the society that is doing the science rather than existing independently of it, but one's attitude towards the proclamations of science-as-conceived can certainly indicate the nature of one's general attitude towards reality external to one's own desires.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nuclear power and Keystone XL can be argued, the former moreso than the latter, but not even people who support hydraulic fracking bother to argue that it 'maintain[ s ] a good and stable environment'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nuclear power and Keystone XL can be argued, the former moreso than the latter, but not even people who support hydraulic fracking bother to argue that it 'maintain a good and stable environment'.

That was a neat trick to reverse the burden of proof. That hydraulic fracking produces oil that would not otherwise be recoverable is sufficient reason to use it absent any extenuating circumstances. The opponent's claims to extenuating circumstances are often more pseudo-science than anything else.

'Pseudo-science' here meaning 'science I'd rather not be there', I assume?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I really don't understand where exactly BS Bob gets off arguing for efficiency being an inherently 'political' concern, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised by now.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I suspect the increased acidity of the oceans does not warrant the introduction of a global carbon tax, especially given the ramifications upon international trade. How often do you hear about the problem of increased acidity of the oceans, anyway?

Most people like to eat fish, and some people have to; how often you hear about a problem isn't necessarily a good indicator of how severe it is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed on this, though safety is always a little harder here than with other sources.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I suspect the increased acidity of the oceans does not warrant the introduction of a global carbon tax, especially given the ramifications upon international trade. How often do you hear about the problem of increased acidity of the oceans, anyway?

Most people like to eat fish, and some people have to;

We can farm fish. Besides, if the problem is so dire that we might no longer be eating fish soon, I think we would be hearing about it more than we have heard about climate change. Of course this is not the case.

We can but the entire oceanic ecosystem is more important. That was just the first (admittedly whimsical) example that came to mind.

The idea that a problem becoming more severe automatically results in it getting more attention is ridiculous.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I really don't understand where exactly BS Bob gets off arguing for efficiency being an inherently 'political' concern, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised by now.

1) You are writing in bizarre slang that is nearly incomprehensible.

What? How on Earth is what I am using 'slang'? I'm genuinely baffled as to how any native speaker of English could possibly consider the post you're quoting 'slang'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of these types of 'efficiency' are connected in case of the tar sands. The economic efficiency is based partially on the engineering efficiency, since engineering has to be done by people, using money. Incidental benefits and detriments are likewise not inherently political concepts, although they certainly can be.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I really don't understand where exactly BS Bob gets off arguing for efficiency being an inherently 'political' concern, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised by now.

1) You are writing in bizarre slang that is nearly incomprehensible.

What? How on Earth is what I am using 'slang'? I'm genuinely baffled as to how any native speaker of English could possibly consider the post you're quoting 'slang'.

"Gets off" is slang. Your use of "gets off" is non-standard given the usual informal rules for slang. If I had to guess what you were trying to say, I'd guess something like, "Where does Bob derive the authority to argue...." But, that was just my guess.

'Gets off' is 'something other than entirely formal written English', not 'slang' (the slang meaning of 'to get off' is something different). There's a difference, which you should know considering the...profoundly informal lexical style of a lot of your posts. Also, since it's obvious in context, 'bizarre' and 'incomprehensible' certainly are not the case even if it is slang, which it is not.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Humans haven't...humans haven't existed in any of the higher-temperature periods, you know, Bob.