House 'Sciences' committee makes US a laughingstock by tweeting Breitbart fake news

[Sea of red]

I admit to being autistic. Having a hard time noticing faults in myself and how I speak is part of that. So understand me One Bad Pig, I'll take what you say under consideration and review. I need feedback like this to help me get better. If you prefer to PM me I'd gladly read your opinion, or whether you post it here.

I also admit to getting passionate about this stuff. It matters to me because I've done some work in it, and because it's an issue that affects us.

Could you help me out by telling me how I can tell you my experience of the Republican Party being mostly climate denial, from virtually all channels that I see, from Republican commentators, to current Trump administration... in a way that doesn't rub you the wrong way?

I'm not being disingenuous I'm simple not sure what it is you want me to say.

It's a one way street, Lenny.

He is a political conservative above all else. There are no charts, graphs, satellite readings, proxy records, studies, scientific academies statements, or any other kind of evidence that will convince him. He would rather go down in flames than align himself in any agreement with the political left in this country - it requires too much of an ego swallowing.

[Zymologist]

I kinda have to wonder why these questions can't be investigated without involving other people. It's not like the information isn't readily available, afaict. Maybe just ask for a few resources to read or whatever. The IPCC review is a great (and easily understood) place to start.

There's something to that, but I'd much rather talk to somebody who knows what they're talking about, and who appears to want to talk back (and listen). Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, the latter kind of person seems to be either a myth, or so rare that they might as well be a myth. So maybe I just have no alternative.

[Zymologist]

It's not like the political right hasn't also done their share of shaming people and constructing caricatures of those they disagree with. The wingers of have called myself and others "tree hungers", "Marxists", "hippies" and "environazi's".

If you really want to become educated then a quick trip on Google to any scientific academy will suffice.

Oh, I don't doubt it. But it does seem to come from the left, on this topic in particular, to an extreme. I'm guilty of it--it's something that's on my mind often when I post or read on here.

[Sea of red]

All I can say is what I have observed, and what I have experienced. I have seen virtually nothing but intolerance and vitriol from the side that has all the science behind them.

Vitriol is something that both sides are guilty of. I'm sorry if you experienced some of it.

But the validity of a scientific issue rests not on the level of civility (or lack of) displayed by one side as opposed to the other, but on the evidence that supports a given idea. Newton was an absolute jerk, but he was right about the laws of motion. Einstein was a committed determinist, but he was right about relativity. Fred Hoyle was a jackass, but he was right about nucleosynthesis, and Stephen Hawking can be very unpleasant, but he is likely correct about black holes quantum mechanically radiating. Facts are no less facts when they come from unpleasant people.

Egos, rude people, and herd mentality exists in all walks of life, and that includes science. If you want to find the best ideas you have let the science speak for itself. I know this can be hard (I've been insulted by people that are geniuses) but in the end it's worth the expansion of knowledge.

[Zymologist]

Vitriol is something that both sides are guilty of. I'm sorry if you experienced some of it.

But the validity of a scientific issue rests not on the level of civility (or lack of) displayed by one side as opposed to the other, but on the evidence that supports a given idea. Newton was an absolute jerk, but he was right about the laws of motion. Einstein was a committed determinist, but he was right about relativity. Fred Hoyle was a jackass, but he was right about a nucleosynthesis, and Stephen Hawking can be very unpleasant, but he is likely correct about black holes quantum mechanically radiating. Facts are no less facts when they come from unpleasant people.

Egos, rude peoples, and herd mentality exists in all walks of life, and that includes science. If you want to find the best ideas you have let the science speak for itself. I know this can be hard (I've been insulted by people that are geniuses) but in the end it's worth the expansion of knowledge.

Yeah, I think vitriol is something that everyone is guilty of. I'm a libertarian (small l), and I've seen some real jackass libertarians.

I think the rest of your post is fair. Things to think about.

Edited for grammar

[Starlight]

Yes. They can and do.

There's plenty of pro-life people on this forum who scream derangedly about all abortions being murder, and then they scream derangedly at me because I'm unconcerned about the age limit for abortion. I just write them off as deranged people.

The people who are pro-choice however, who are liberal (at least on that issue), do have various reasons for an upper cut-off for abortions, such as a 26 week limit before the nervous system develops etc. My lack of interest in the age limit for abortions could potentially be a concern for them, but they don't scream derangedly at me, so there's no problem there. Obviously they can have a reasoned discussion with me if they wish about why they think there should be a certain cut off point rather than another with regard to legal and moral criteria. It's not a subject I particularly care about though, as it doesn't affect me personally, and isn't a live political issue in my country, so I view it as an abstract philosophical discussion.

[One Bad Pig]

I don't think it matters how you're approached on the subject. You've made up your mind based on your very strong political commitments and nothing else.

It burns you up to think that after all of your mocking of those on the left for taking the issue seriously, that they might just be right. That's why you dig your heels into the ground and project your flawed way of thinking on to others.

It's rhetoric like this which merely confirms my impression. Psychoanalysis is, um, not your strong suit.

I could try to explain my position again, but it's not like you've ever listened before. Suffice it to say, I"m somewhere between "the sky is falling" and "it's all a hoax" - which in the eyes of "the sky is falling crowd" is tantamount to me saying "it's all a hoax."

[Sea of red]

It's rhetoric like this which merely confirms my impression.

It's statements like this that confirm mine. Read what I wrote to Zymologist.

Psychoanalysis is, um, not your strong suit.

It appears atmospheric science is not yours.

I could try to explain my position again, but it's not like you've ever listened before.

If you've got something science related to say then I'm all ears. I've been involved in this debate for over a decade - I have heard it all at least once. If you have a question or an argument, then lets hear it.

[Starlight]

If you've got something science related to say then I'm all ears. I've been involved in this debate for over a decade - I have heard it all at least once. If you have a question or an argument, then lets hear it.

Breitbart News told him the climate was cooling, Fox News said global warming is a liberal conspiracy, Trump told him it was invented by China, and Rush Limbaugh did a rant about it... why should he listen to a liberal like you and your 'evidence' and 'knowledge' and 'education' in the face of that overwhelming proof?

[Terraceth]

Newton was an absolute jerk, but he was right about the laws of motion.

Hrm... could you elaborate? I'll admit I know very little about Isaac Newton as a person (especially because I just realized that a few things I thought I did know about him turned out to be about about Blaise Pascal).

[Sea of red]

Hrm... could you elaborate? I'll admit I know very little about Isaac Newton as a person (especially because I just realized that a few things I thought I did know about him turned out to be about about Blaise Pascal).

Newton was known for holding grudges against people and being a glory hog.

Robert Hooke and Gottfried Leibniz were just as important as he was in the history of physics and mathematics, but Newton is held up as though he developed his ideas alone without any outside influence by folks like Neil Tyson. Newton held vendettas against the both Hooke and Leibniz. He trashed them every chance he got - even when they where dead. But it was his feud with Leibniz that was particularly nasty. Leibniz contributions to calculus were important in the development of modern physics - specifically his use of integrals and infinitesimals. Newton started a highly public feud between the two and used his pull in the Royal society as a weapon against Leibniz. He accused Leibniz of stealing his work; of course now we know he developed his theorems independently of Newton. When the Royal society ruled in Newtons favor, Leibniz had a nervous breakdown, to which Newton took great pleasure in.

Newton used his political pull far too much and he was not a gentlemen in respecting his contemporaries contributions.

[Leonhard]

This sounds like justifying well-poisoning.

It's honestly hard to take him seriously beyond that. Which is a shame, because he makes a lot of good points when he's not trying to be a jerk.

[Leonhard]

I could try to explain my position again, but it's not like you've ever listened before. Suffice it to say, I"m somewhere between "the sky is falling" and "it's all a hoax" - which in the eyes of "the sky is falling crowd" is tantamount to me saying "it's all a hoax."

I don't understand why you're taking it so personal. I haven't made any claim about you. Only general observations and critiques of the Republican party as a whole. I assume you take offense because you identify with them in some sense. "The sky is falling" is kinda uselessly vague. What do you mean by that? Any observation that climate change is human driven, we ought to do something about it, or the consequences could be severe?

I don't know whether you believe its a hoax. The whole idea of Chicken Little crying 'The sky is falling' is that the sky isn't falling, but I'll assume you mean you just have a generic distrust of the severity of the prediction, if not an outright dispute of the basic facts. That its an outright hoax (even a Marxist hoax) is certainly an accusation I hear a lot One Bad Pig. I've heard plenty about climatologists being money grabbers who just want to say politically correct things for grant money. Basically lying and faking data to keep their jobs, when not outright hired by the left to manufacture a false danger of climate change. That's when you don't have Trump declaring a Chinese conspiracy theory, or conservatives claiming that Al Gore is the instigator and spokesperson for the climatologists (even though he only produced on poor documentary). Rush Limbaugh and the head of the EPA transition team boldly proclaiming that the Earth is actually getting colder. Trump saying he'll shut down NASA's climatology department, with its fifteen earth observatory satellites, since he thinks the science is politically biased.

I've heard stuff like that on this forum, and I've done what I can to defend the truth in NatSci. Though apparently I defend it so strongly that I'm not to be taken serious?

I myself hold a balanced view on things. Its better to do something now. It will have severe consequences if we don't. Its a transition we'll have to go through at some point anyway, so all we're doing is hastening a development already underway. Is that crying 'the sky is falling'?

Again, what is the appropriate amount of vigil in this that you'd think is proper?

[rogue06]

There's plenty of pro-life people on this forum who scream derangedly about all abortions being murder, and then they scream derangedly at me because I'm unconcerned about the age limit for abortion. I just write them off as deranged people.

I'd use considerably stronger language than deranged for someone who supports not just abortion but post-birth abortion allowing infants to be murdered several weeks to a couple of months after they were born if the mother decides they are too much trouble.

[rogue06]

Newton was known for holding grudges against people and being a glory hog.

Robert Hooke and Gottfried Leibniz were just as important as he was in the history of physics and mathematics, but Newton is held up as though he developed his ideas alone without any outside influence by folks like Neil Tyson. Newton held vendettas against the both Hooke and Leibniz. He trashed them every chance he got - even when they where dead. But it was his feud with Leibniz that was particularly nasty. Leibniz contributions to calculus were important in the development of modern physics - specifically his use of integrals and infinitesimals. Newton started a highly public feud between the two and used his pull in the Royal society as a weapon against Leibniz. He accused Leibniz of stealing his work; of course now we know he developed his theorems independently of Newton. When the Royal society ruled in Newtons favor, Leibniz had a nervous breakdown, to which Newton took great pleasure in.

Newton used his political pull far too much and he was not a gentlemen in respecting his contemporaries contributions.

Wrt Robert Hooke, several scholars today think Newton likely lifted his ideas concerning gravity from him and not only never gave him credit but went to great lengths to expunge all references to Hooke's work from his publications.

And Newton had a foul temper. IIRC, he was removed from school by his family but was determined to return primarily if not solely motivated by seeking revenge on another student. Later he either threatened or attempted to (accounts vary) burn down his father-in-law and mother's house with the family still in it during a fit of rage.

He is often put forth as the epitome of a Christian scientist (writing at least as much about religion as he did science) but was more likely an Arian who believed that worshiping Christ as God was idolatry though others think that the only thing he could be called with any certainty was a deist.

Whatever the case he clearly rejected the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. He was required to be ordained as a fellow of Trinity at Cambridge but found loopholes to postpone it because he would have to swear he believed in the Trinity. Likewise, he was also required to be ordained when he accepted the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics but got Charles II to grant him an exemption.

While his beliefs concerning the Trinity would have got him branded as a heretic