Santorum: Democrats are anti-science

[redcommander]

LOL

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57381369-503544/santorum-democrats-are-anti-science-not-me/

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

You cant make this sh*t up.

[RI]

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.

[Hash]

Stop. saying. words. Frothy.

[bgwah]

The Democrats becoming the scientific, reality-based party has been one of the more interesting aspects of the ongoing realignment.

[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.

[Napoleon]

Ha, cute.

[minionofmidas]

There's many reasons not to elect Mitt, but Rick is not one of them.

[Simfan34]

Not a gaffe in the GOP.

[argentarius]

Not a gaffe in the GOP.

[Lambsbread]

That quote gave me cancer.

[Brandon H]

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.

Agree. But now people are trying to make science a partisan issue.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Santorum: A male Sarah Palin.

[BigSkyBob]

The title of this thread is completely bogus.

Santorum said,

 "When it comes to the management of the Earth, they are the anti-science ones. We are the ones who stand for science, and technology, and using the resources we have to be able to make sure that we have a quality of life in this country and (that we) maintain a good and stable environment,"

The title should read,

Santorum: "Democratic management of the Earth is anti-Science."

I would cite Democratic attitudes toward nuclear power, hydraulic fracking, and the Keystone pipeline as evidence for Santorum's contention.

[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'.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was in the context of the global warming thing. Not that I would defer to Rick's judgment (he in fact does not even make a argument here, just a conclusion) in making up my mind as to the merits of that issue. It's complicated (just ask Snowguy, on whom I would rely much more actually on this matter ), and Rick is more of a Manichean type of guy. Nuance just isn't his thing.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Rick is more of a Manichean type of guy. Nuance just isn't his thing. [/b]

And this is why he's a hero to the Right.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

[Person Man]

Fracking actually does suck. They can't drink their water Pavillion out in Fremont County. Its pretty ridiculous. The Keystone pipeline...well, I don't know too much about that to have an opinion but I can understand why people are frustrated on the issue of Nuclear Power. It can combat global warming, our dependency on fossil fuels and allow us to build faster, larger space stations and manned spacecraft to the point of having a reliable interplanetary man-rated vehicle.

[izixs]

First off note, I might not be a climate scientists, but I do have an advanced physics degree. I hope that minimally qualifies me to discuss the prevalent scientific consensus as I actually know what scientific consensus is. That said, Ricky doesn't understand what scientific consensus is.

The general argument he and other Republicans have been trying to make for some time now is that climate science is a conspiracy of some sort, and that we should be using science and technology to get more energy resources because its always good. And its always good as it means cheep energy to maintain or grow the standard of living.

The scientific consensus by the super majority who actually study the environment (as opposed to the tiny minority who are paid to pretend they do) is that man made pollutants are increasing global temperatures and are going to lead to long term problems for everyone on the planet. These problems, such as changing weather patterns, sea level rise, and shifts in crop suitability in places are going to negatively effect our standard of living in drastically negative ways.

So you have a consensus of legit scientists, who other than what they study are no different from the ones designing next generation oil rigs, claiming 99 to 1 that human caused climate change is going to spell disaster up against Rick Santorum who chooses to ignore them. Never mind that if those scientists are right (and I believe they are, its hard to make stuff up in evidence based land where people can check your work) that the things they want to change to prevent disaster will have a much less negative effect upon standards of living compared to the negatives that will happen if we do nothing. At the very least it would make sense to play it safe right? But no, Santorum and other Republicans in the denial crowd want us to dig deeper and burn more based on no real evidence.

Ignore evidence that's staring you in the face is being anti-science folks. Its also being in fantasy land.

This situation is like if a patient has cancer, the doctor tells the patient that if they don't have surgery they will die. The patient doesn't want to have surgery, because despite the doctors of today being kind of pretty good at surgery, it will negatively effect his well being. So he chooses to ignore the diagnosis that he has cancer. Choosing instead to pretend his imminent death (which is very bad) won't happen and thus he doesn't have to have surgery (a little bad).

It makes no sense. And that's what the common consensus is claimed to be in large sections of the Republican party.

Of course, there's also the likely possibility that many do believe climate change is real, but that they'll be long dead before it causes them any problems so why not trash the place and live a life of luxury? Or they don't care if its real, the oil company folks who write their checks want they to say it isn't to protect the oil industry from any possible inconvenience. And of course theres the folks who don't believe they have to care because we're all getting raptured soon anyway and Jesus will make everything awesome forever (or a thousand years or something).

These aren't folks who care about being all about science.

For me on the specific issues of fracking, Keystone, and nuclear power...

Fracking - I think it needs more study before its use is expanded as there are some alarm bells (water contamination being the major) that are linked to it. I haven't looked much at the science myself so I'll pass on having a firm opinion on this one.

Keystone pipeline - Tar sand oil extraction is not an energy efficient way to get oil for one. Second the oil attained this way is very dirty and prone to causing more pollutants than other more traditional oil sources. So if it can be avoided (and I think it can be) it should be. So we really shouldn't be encouraging its use.

Nuclear - Can be a good stop gap measure while we transform our energy infrastructure. And with time and development of better fuel reprocessing and alternative fuels (thorium for instance) it could be a long term viable component energy source. The danger with traditional nuclear facilities are of course the threats of spent radioactive fuel and some countries starting a power nuclear program with the intention of using it to start making weapons grade materials. Both I'd say are bad things, but with careful planning and further research we should be able to overcome those. As is though, I can understand why lots of folks are very hesitant about nuclear power. Nobody like birth defects or chlorine gas explosions.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Agree. But now people are trying to make science a partisan issue.

Indeed. However, it's not us.

[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?

[TJ in Oregon]

If anything the people who are really anti-science are those who would cut research funding. This is more likely to be Republicans than Democrats, but libertarians are generally the biggest offenders.

This mess of reducing "science" to like two issues is also getting really old. There are other phenomena out there besides global warming that are worth talking about and worth investing in. Of course it's normally non-political.

The Republican Party has been approaching the global warming issue wrong for a while now: instead of denying it wholesale, the Republicans ought to be arguing that we're better off dealing with natural challenges as they occur than we are by wrecking our economy trying to pre-empt everything.

[BigSkyBob]

First off note, I might not be a climate scientists, but I do have an advanced physics degree. I hope that minimally qualifies me to discuss the prevalent scientific consensus as I actually know what scientific consensus is. That said, Ricky doesn't understand what scientific consensus is.

The general argument he and other Republicans have been trying to make for some time now is that climate science is a conspiracy of some sort, and that we should be using science and technology to get more energy resources because its always good. And its always good as it means cheep energy to maintain or grow the standard of living.

The scientific consensus by the super majority who actually study the environment (as opposed to the tiny minority who are paid to pretend they do) is that man made pollutants are increasing global temperatures and are going to lead to long term problems for everyone on the planet.

1) You haven't even stated the position correctly. Global temperatures have increased in the last Century. The global warming theory is that man-made pollution has caused most/all of the rise, not some of the rise [as opposed to natural fluxuations in solar output, or volcanic activity.]

2) The second part about "leading to long term problems for everyone on the planet" isn't a very scientific viewpoint at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope, the folks who blame increases in solar output have their data points showing recent increases in solar output. Volcanists have their data points showing natural variations of CO2 levels. Their data points can be confirmed as well.

When solar output starts to wane, yet, temperatures continue to increase, CO2 level cease to rise, but, global temperatures continue to increase, CO2 continues to increase but temperatures fall, or volcanic activity ceases but temperature rise, science will have a better understanding of the cause(s) of global warming.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Keystone pipeline - Tar sand oil extraction is not an energy efficient way to get oil for one. Second the oil attained this way is very dirty and prone to causing more pollutants than other more traditional oil sources. So if it can be avoided (and I think it can be) it should be. So we really shouldn't be encouraging its use.

Problem is, stopping Keystone XL will not stop the development of the oil sands.  What it will do is make the transit of that oil to where it will ultimately be used be more expensive and energy intensive, thereby actually contributing to that global warming the NIMBY environmentalists claim they are trying to stop by blocking it.