It's Global Warming!

[AUChizad]

No, it's not.

The topic is global climate change and whether it exists first of all then is it anthropogenic or natural; secondly, what degree the use of technology helped the Democrats and the Obama campaign win the election and/or why it helped the Republicans lose it because they didn't utilize it more (since they are "neanderthals").  The rest of this is an absolute red herring.

Broadly, I study science theories along with facts and so-called "facts" (also, certain religious dogma too by the way) as a skeptic but not an agnostic (not to be disrespectful of someone who holds that belief/practice).  I don't fit inside your stereotype of a conservative Republican; I would have thought that you would know that by now.

"There are more things to heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Ok.

Well then, secondarily, to me at least, it's about how, while I agree with a lot of things about the Republican party, I cannot relate on this issue, nor any other issue in which basic scientific principles are rejected outright as philosophical nonsense. That was the main focus of the Tech article that you acknowledged, which is why I entered it into the conversation. There is a cultural resistance to anything related to science within the Republican party, and I take real issue with that.

[Vandy Vol]

Allow me to ratify my previous statement and clear things up a bit:

Scientifically speaking, global warming is God's fault.

[Vandy Vol]

And Bush's.  Scientifically speaking.

[bottomfeeder]

Let's just fucking call it climate changes and drop the whole fucking issue before the UN taxes us out of the other 50% of our income the government doesn't get, yet. Because after they get that passed, then the UN will claim firearms are responsible for climate change, at which time they will then be shot.

[Vandy Vol]

Has anyone thought about the aliens and what they are doing to our atmosphere?

Polluting, that's what.

[Saniflush]

So evolution is bullshit, in your estimation.

It's valid to the discussion. It's not saying "Haha, stupid Christians" just to offend your delegate sensibilities.

I'm gonna need a ruling. 

WTF is this and did God still make it?

[ssgaufan]

I'm gonna need a ruling. 

WTF is this and did God still make it?

No, it evolved from those cheating saints.

[AUChizad]

For what it's worth, I could give a shit about what you believe.

It's what you don't believe that I take issue with. You can believe in God and still realize that evolution is as much a scientific fact of nature as gravity, or the Earth revolving around the Sun.

If you want to believe the Earth is flat because "Them science folk is a bunch of liars", then so be it. But don't expect me to bend to your delusion. And don't call it closed mindedness when I don't.

If you choose to look at the world in the same way as the Insane Clown Posse, go right ahead.

[War Eagle!!!]

That is, by far, the worst song I have ever hear in my life. And my 18 month old is into the Wiggles right now...

[djsimp]

No, it evolved from those cheating saints.

 

[djsimp]

And my 18 month old is into the Wiggles right now...

I will be praying for you.

[Ogre]

It's what you don't believe that I take issue with. You can believe in God and still realize that evolution is as much a scientific fact of nature as gravity, or the Earth revolving around the Sun.

Are you talking about micro-evolution or macro-evolution?  Those are two different things.  One is real and not up for debate (IMHO).  The other is far from 'fact' and is completely up for debate. 

[Tarheel]

Ok.

Well then, secondarily, to me at least, it's about how, while I agree with a lot of things about the Republican party, I cannot relate on this issue, nor any other issue in which basic scientific principles are rejected outright as philosophical nonsense. That was the main focus of the Tech article that you acknowledged, which is why I entered it into the conversation. There is a cultural resistance to anything related to science within the Republican party, and I take real issue with that.

I'll try to stay brief.

I do understand that people in your age demographic don't relate to the Republican Party on these issues.  I can't speak for the Party as a whole; I'm simply identifying to you that there are those like me who think differently within the party; maybe we're a dying breed.  I think we agree that the Republicans must set aside cultural resistance based on religious dogma (and intolerance) and use technology to the greatest extent possible in electioneering.  The Dems have shown that this is how to reach the grass roots and win elections.

Science, in general: I think one can't outright reject basic scientific principles if those principles are founded on empirical evidence.  If a "basic scientific principle" is founded on consensus agreement of a theory then, in my opinion, it is wide open for challenge especially anthropogenic global warming.  Just because a plurality or majority of scientists agree that a theory is truth does not make it truth.

Climate change: I don't know how many glaciers that you have actually been to but I've been to three several times over a 12 year period beginning in 1989.  I have hiked up the Gornergrat and down to the Gorner Glacier, I have hiked up to and been on and in the Rhon Glacier and I've flown by helicopter over the Grenz Glacier a couple of times.  Despite seasonal ice and snow accumulation they are observably and measurably retreating.  Small examples, I know, but it suggests to me that we are in a real warming cycle.  To the extent that this is caused by human activity is inconclusive other than consensus in a theory and that is not science in my opinion.

Sorry to go on so long; tl:dr...

[Tarheel]

...

Merciful Buddha.  I cannot relate to this music.  It's horrible.  Just my humble opinion.

[AUChizad]

Are you talking about micro-evolution or macro-evolution?  Those are two different things.  One is real and not up for debate (IMHO).  The other is far from 'fact' and is completely up for debate. 

I'll concede that. Fair enough.

So then, when the topic of evolution is brought up, rather than responding with mockery, perhaps make that distinction upfront, if you must. But don't pretend that the entire concept is gobbldy gook, without at least making that distinction.

Science, in general: I think one can't outright reject basic scientific principles if those principles are founded on empirical evidence.  If a "basic scientific principle" is founded on consensus agreement of a theory then, in my opinion, it is wide open for challenge especially anthropogenic global warming.  Just because a plurality or majority of scientists agree that a theory is truth does not make it truth.

Climate change: I don't know how many glaciers that you have actually been to but I've been to three several times over a 12 year period beginning in 1989.  I have hiked up the Gornergrat and down to the Gorner Glacier, I have hiked up to and been on and in the Rhon Glacier and I've flown by helicopter over the Grenz Glacier a couple of times.  Despite seasonal ice and snow accumulation they are observably and measurably retreating.  Small examples, I know, but it suggests to me that we are in a real warming cycle.  To the extent that this is caused by human activity is inconclusive other than consensus in a theory and that is not science in my opinion.

The problem here is you are using the colloquial terms "fact" and "theory", and not recognizing the scientific meaning of those words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental or empirical data or objective verifiable observations.[9][10] "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any theory for which there is overwhelming evidence.[11]

    A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. —Douglas Futuyma [12]

Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently, evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.[13][14] The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.

    There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.[15]

The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:

    Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.[16]

Gould also points out that "Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution."[17] These two aspects are frequently confused. Scientists continue to argue about particular explanations or mechanisms at work in specific instances of evolution, but the fact that evolution has occurred and is still occurring is undisputed.

A common misconception is that evolution cannot be observed because it all happened millions of years ago and the science does not therefore depend on facts (in the initial sense above). However both Darwin and Wallace, the co-founders of the theory, and all subsequent biologists depend primarily on observations of living organisms; Darwin concentrated largely on the breeding of domesticated animals whereas Wallace started from the biogeographical distribution of species in the Amazon and Malay Archipelago. In the early twentieth century, population genetics had centre stage, and more recently DNA has become the main focus of observation and experimentation.

Philosophers of science argue that we do not know mind-independent empirical truths with absolute certainty: even direct observations may be "theory laden" and depend on assumptions about our senses and the measuring instruments used. In this sense all facts are provisional.[18][19]

Merciful Buddha.  I cannot relate to this music.  It's horrible.  Just my humble opinion.

No, I think that one is scientific fact. If not colloquial fact.

[Ogre]

If you're interested in hearing the flip side of the coin, I'd recommend listening to these lectures put forth at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church.  Every year he has an Apologetics Conference where he brings in different subject matter experts to discuss the arguments for a particular topic.  In 2012 the theme was Creation.  I'd start with Lee Strobel's lecture and just work your way down.  There are some very compelling arguments which include plenty of scientific data on their own, proving that one can believe in science and God. 

Here's the link:

http://www.saddleback.com/resources/apologetics/

[Kaos]

This nest is full of hornets. 

I believe in God.  Period.  God created this and I know for a fact that He exists.  God is as real to me as the desk i'm sitting at. 

But that doesn't preclude the fact that things change.  They obviously do.  Because God made them change. 

[Tarheel]

...

No, I think that one is scientific fact. If not colloquial fact.

I'll concede that. We have an accord on that one at least.

As to the rest, you seem to be vexed and/or obsessed about whatever you think that my position is on evolution when I'm commenting on anthropogenic global warming so "we have arrived at an intellectual chaos".

[GH2001]

I'll concede that. Fair enough.

So then, when the topic of evolution is brought up, rather than responding with mockery, perhaps make that distinction upfront, if you must. But don't pretend that the entire concept is gobbldy gook, without at least making that distinction.
The problem here is you are using the colloquial terms "fact" and "theory", and not recognizing the scientific meaning of those words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
No, I think that one is scientific fact. If not colloquial fact.

Much like snopes, Wikipedia is someone's unofficial opinion of what the facts are. Could be absolutely right. And could be wrong. I just find it ironic.

[AUownsU]

For what it's worth, I could give a shit about what you believe.

It's what you don't believe that I take issue with. You can believe in God and still realize that evolution is as much a scientific fact of nature as gravity, or the Earth revolving around the Sun.

If you want to believe the Earth is flat because "Them science folk is a bunch of liars", then so be it. But don't expect me to bend to your delusion. And don't call it closed mindedness when I don't.

If you choose to look at the world in the same way as the Insane Clown Posse, go right ahead.

Better ICP song..