Burning garbage is sooo much cleaner than burning hydrocarbons. Oh wait they are both polluting. So much for utopia.

Re: the recurring "viable alternatives" tangent.

People get confused over about cleaner vs. more expensive. When people say we have tons of clean energy methods, it is true. They ignore the fact that they are vastly more expensive. Other people look to replace fossil fuels in order to save money, and find barely any viable alternatives.

Liek Brad said on the "Hybrid" blog, he doesn't necessarily want a hybrid because it is cheaper to use, he just wants to do his part for the environment. Most people, though, will expect a car that uses less gas to be less expensive in the long run, and won't buy one until it is, regardless of its environmental friendliness.

Anyway, I think Madine was talking about an economically viable source of energy, i.e. one that wouldn't require huge sacrifices to an economy to use.

Care to back up your assertion with something more then speculation?

While I don't have figures, there are a significant number of members of the scientific community that are opposed to Bush on 1. envoronmental issues and 2. Decision to go to war in Iraq 3. The lack of the administration's concerted effort to deal with accountability of nuclear material at rick due to the break up of the Soviet Block States.

I have seen larger lists of names of scientists who have opposed this President on thes basis of these policies.

I think you are mistaken.

But that aside, one can have scientific inclinations and still be religious.

I work for a chemical engineering R&D company and I can say without equivocation; the majority of the scientists, engineers are supportive of the President. Mr. Wells in asking for someone to backup their assertions you might provide some basis for your own. Enviromental issues are better understood by my colleagues and there is no consensus for solution or causation. Contrary to the wishes of the left we are unable to state emphatically that human beings are causing global warming.
For instance we know that the temperature of the atmosphere has fluctuated in the past. Most people also know, intuitively speaking, that the temperature from year to year will flucuate. Maybe you can tell me Mr. Wells whether you expect the temperatures to be the same from year to year? I doubt anyone could believe such a simplistic notion. The facts are human beings need energy to provide the standard of living we have come to expect in the modern age. While we could discuss the possibilities of alternatives, that discussion will not meet the needs we have right now. A conversion from a hydrocarbon energy economy will entail more that switching transportation. It will also involve switching the industrial base. Many of the most important industrial processes use tremendous amounts of energy (refining aluminum), as such we cannot expect, nor should expect any major shift in industry practice.
Oh, and regarding Bill Maher the subject of this thread, I could'nt agree more, as a double major in chemistry/biology I can honestly say that both sides get the science wrong all the time. Stem cell research for instance, a hot topic for both parties; there is no limitation of private industry in conducting research in the field. There is a limit of the amount of federal funding. Maybe Bill Maher should petition George Soros to use some of his money for such promising research. Put up or shut up.

Cheers, Ithaycu

Soros' money is reserved for social experiments, like legal drugs and testing to see if zombies can be elected President.

You don't understand the position of the aetheist based on your assumptions. As an engineer and an athesist, I refuse to be belittled because of my lack of belief. This does not originate with logic, it come from the heart - or lack of an ability to feel comfortable with the idea of G*d (the reason I write G*d is out of respect for my family religious belief as Jews). Einstein believed in a Universal Religion but in context stated that religion in most faiths is based on fear of retribution for our sin's. The greatest sin, in my opinion, is the believers faith that we as human beings are made in the image of G*d. Einstein believed that this was an arogant position because it eliminated the idea of other worlds where life and a basis of faith existed - are these human in our image or something that we would not accept, as the Church refused to accept the native indian belief and forced their faith on mankind in the form of an inquisition. How narrow minded is mankind who creates the majority of death to other human beings in the name of G*d. This is what is happening today as it has happened since the begining of mankind.
Einstein also believed in nature as well as science - a few hundred years ago what science has explained today was considered the work of the devil. What is not explained today remains to be discovered in nature by science.
As an aetheist I still believe that the moral, ethical and respect for others is a good rule, even if it was written by mortals. This is still a rule to guide the way we treat one another but unfortunately the world is torn and religion is at the root of this hatred of each other. Extremists like the fundamentialist Islamics Jehads put it in perspective - they have taken their religious beyond what we fear to do, but many of mankind has in their hearts to do to one another, but without admiting it. What the Islamic's are doing is not much different than the genocide that repeats itself throughout history.
At least the Jews established memorials for Tolerance, the Hindu and Native American Indians repected nature - of which we are a part. The fear of those who have less faith in G*d than others are not liberals or conservatives, they are simply people who have made a decision the same as those who take the leap of faith, to admit that they do not feel comfortable accepting the ideology of a G*d and would rather spend their time living up to the moral values that the bible (a good book) teaches man.
Stop thinking that politics and religion go hand in hand - in our society there is a separation of Church and State. I can guarantee you that there are as many Republicans as Democrats who are aetheists - most are just afraid to admit it in public. Finally, there are those aetheists who are extremists, but we see every day in the papers and on the news those moralists who are just as extreme - this is where the problem lies.
Tolerance starts with respect and if this is a liberal ideology then so be it.

Too bad you think Christians are whacko and others are not. Try a Christian who strongly believes in science - well..."true science" that is.... I feel Bush is the best candidate because he has standards that allow him to open up to people, God and the nation as a whole. Kerry, on the other hand, is deceitful and confused, but has a quick mind.... one that would, undoubtedly make bad decision so quickly that he could never reverse them..... then when the smoke clears, have more excuses than you could shake a stick at.

Soros' money is reserved for social experiments, like legal drugs and testing to see if zombies can be elected President.

Don't forget his constant attempts to undermine the Asian financial markets.

The greatest sin, in my opinion, is the believers faith that we as human beings are made in the image of G*d.

This has nothing to do with physical appearance. That are minds are secant and that we have the power to create in a way that no other creature is capable of doing, makes us like God. I don't see giraffes designing and building hydro-electric dams. This isn't a matter of faith, it's a fact. BUT, that doesn't mean that all we create is good. God has given us free will and put us here to see all that we will do without the certainty of Gods presence. God created the universe, worlds without end and man in many forms. You seem to want to point a finger at God for the actions of man. Man, from the beginning, has done abdominal things to man. Since Cain (cromagnon) murdered Able (Neanderthal) man has shown his corruption. To this day we all hold this heritage, to point a finger at one another an say "tho Cain" because their skins (appearances) are different. God is the only thing we can hold on to, to save us from our selves.

a few hundred years ago what science has explained today was considered the work of the devil. What is not explained today remains to be discovered in nature by science.

Yes, because "the church" could not manipulate the populations if science provided a vision of the universe that "the church" could not control. This is precisely why, when the Christian Bible was assembled that certain books were not included and the rest were probably edited for content. For instance, in the book of Saint Thomas recently translated from Aramaic:

77 Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.
Split a piece of wood; I am there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

Now "the church" could have none of that, especially if that verse were understood with a scientific mind. It would literally mean that God IS THE LIGHT and permeates the universe and all things. You can't be manipulating people without a little hoodoo and what would the profit for a church if God were all around you and even within you, instead of within token icons. Man has always endeavored to manipulate man because man has always been willing to worship man instead of God.

unfortunately the world is torn and religion is at the root of this hatred of each other.

Again the gospel of Saint Thomas:

16 Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to casy peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.
For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone.
17 Jesus said, "I will give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no hand has touched, what has not arisen in the human heart."
18 The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?"
Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is.

the Hindu and Native American Indians repected nature - of which we are a part.

Yes, but this doesn't mean they weren't a fairly murderous lot from time to time - and my father was a half-breed Cherokee, if you think I being harsh or bigoted.

The fear of those who have less faith in G*d than others are not liberals or conservatives, they are simply people who have made a decision the same as those who take the leap of faith, to admit that they do not feel comfortable accepting the ideology of a G*d and would rather spend their time living up to the moral values that the bible (a good book) teaches man.

The reason it make you feel comfortable is that you believe you will not be accountable for your actions and deeds. Well, that's convenient for you isn't it?

Stop thinking that politics and religion go hand in hand - in our society there is a separation of Church and State.

I think your a little confused here as well. Obviously, you don't have a clue as to why this amendment came to be in the first place. In England (the mother country) at the time there was a persecution of anyone that did not belong to the Church of England especially Catholics. Our fore fathers wanted more freedom in choice of religious belief. This amendment merely guarantees that there will be no state sanctioned religion. A government that creates laws that do not reflect the morality (that is derived from religious belief) of the masses would be a shame. The fore fathers might as well have gone back to the Hammurabi Code if that was their intention (which it wasn't). In fact most if not all of them were of various Christian faiths. To interpret the amendment the way your thinking is just plain wrong. Of coarse the Supreme Court rulings on it have been influenced by the left for quite some time now which is the reason for much of the moral decay of this country. So much so that the Islamic fundamentalists label us the "Great Satan". And indeed Hollywood is like the "Whore of Babylon". It preachs the "New Morality" but it isn't morality that is their interest but the sale of their immorality for entertainment purposes. So don't go thinking that this nation leaning to the Left will be able to bring about any peace with them - it will only inrage them more.

And to quote Einstein (and yes, I know he did not believe in a personal God): "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". Well, you don't have to be a genius to understand why he said this. It is because science can tell us how the universe began and how it works but it is not so good at telling us why. On the other hand religion can explain to us why the universe began and why it is here at all, but is not so good at telling us how. Only by combining the two can we possibly know all things.

Soros' money is reserved for social experiments, like legal drugs and testing to see if zombies can be elected President.

And the problem would be?...

Seriously, it is possible to support both Soros and Bush, technically speaking. I happen to have views on certain social issues that most would pigeon-hole as liberal.

I support the decriminalization of drug use as a means of destroying the scourge of gang warfare and because there are rational medicinal uses of some currently-illegal drugs. I actively participated in a (failed) drive, partially funded by Soros, to legalize medical use of marijuana in my state. I accept that there will always be some among us who will be susceptible to addiction to substances; by eliminating the financial incentives to dealing drugs, we will actually decrease the exposure of our children to sources of drugs and decrease the experimentation rate. Claiming that legalizing and controlling drugs would "send the wrong message to our kids" is facetious and relies on the assumption that government has to do for parents what they are too lazy (in the government's opinion) to do for themselves. I think it is way to easy to fall into the trap of assuming that as long as drugs are illegal, there is no problem. The "war" on drugs has turned out to be a war on users instead of suppliers. Prohibition of alcohol should have taught us a lession here, but it seems to be getting largely ignored.

I support the right of a woman (or couple) to choose whether or not to abort a pregnancy.

I have no problem with gay marriage, whether traditional, by civil union or some other put-a-nice-face-on-it means.

I support stem cell research, with or without federal funding. The question of whether tax dollars should be spent on it is legitimate to debate, but that has been the traditional (and only) way the government has been able to gain control over legal private behavior ("I pay for it, therefore you will do it my way.")

I strongly support President Bush because on the issues most important to me - the safety and security of my children and grandchildren - I'll sleep better at night with him in the White House.

So painting anyone, including Soros, with a broad brush is intellectually shortsighted. I think he's nuts to think Bush is another Hitler, but I can and do support some of the things he has advocated. An idea is not defined, or determined to be good or bad in its own right, simply by who espouses it.

But I liked the bit about "testing to see if zombies and be elected President."

Sorry if a little OT.

Cheers,
Daiwa

"That's usually because in my experience liberal positions aren't based on science but rather warm fuzzy emotions."

How utterly ridiculous Draginol. The extreme greens as they are called in Australia..where do you think that environmental movement stems from? The answer is Science! Your science teacher may have taught you about the cycles of nature and the effects of pollution on human health, causing problems such as melanomas and asthma. I realise you personally have a different interpretation of the scientific facts and claim you are more realistic, but don't give me that rubbish about we're all just about warm fuzzy emotions.

A huge proprotion of academics, who are usually known for their hardcore intellectual elitism, favour left wing politics because they believe that a social conscience is important and that creating a gap between the rich and poor and destroying health and education actually is detrimental to the country. You may disagree with them, but it is not just a bunch of emotions.

Even Marx, who I don't agree with, can hardly be accused of being stupid. Das Kapital was a very complex work based on a lot of research and work, not emotion.

Sure there are people in our movement who are simply swept up in populism. The majority of people on the Right are the same, which is why the Right has control of the Western world. And sure there are some intellectual elitists on the Left, but so what. You can hardly tell me there are none of these on the Right. John Howard has given new meaning to the idea of a man who believes that only his side has the access to enlightened thinking.

This article Draginol, hardly struck me as a humble work, so how about you stop calling out "black" to the kettle, hey!

Champas Socialist : but you can also look at the fact that nations who base most of their governing decisions on what you claim to be "social concience" don't do any better (and some much worse) than the "vile" US.

"where do you think that environmental movement stems from? The answer is Science! "

That isn't true either. The roots of the environmental movement come from emotion, look at the history of the movement. Later, science has worked from that emotion to prove their points. Sometimes it has played out, sometimes it hasn't. I think if you look hard, you won't find much, if any, unbiased science that just happened upon some ecological nightmare that requires social change to fix.

It is a balance, and the "extreme greens" aren't any more balanced than people on the other end of the spectrum.

"And sure there are some intellectual elitists on the Left, but so what. You can hardly tell me there are none of these on the Right."

I think that is Brad's point. People characterize the left as the abode of intellectuals, and the right as the abode of uninformed sheep. I personally think that the masses following some arcane "social conscience" no matter the success of such in the past is easily as "sheepish".

"The roots of the environmental movement come from emotion, look at the history of the movement. Later, science has worked from that emotion to prove their points."

Utter rubbish. Scientific knowledge about the cycles of nature and the usefulness of trees is very old. In non-Western cultures, they realised it millenia before we did. Their science is based on different methods to ours, but it is still a form of science, albeit combined with religion (I say that as though Western science hasn't been inextricably linked with religion until very recently). I'm not saying there aren't people in the Left who lead with their heart (and I don't see what's wrong with leading with a heart), but there is a lot of head work to the Left. In fact, a couple of Leftists I know don't get along with people that well.

"unbiased science "

There is no such thing. You have truly been blinded by your own biases if you believe that there is.

"I think that is Brad's point. "

Well it was a little hard to figure out wasn't it!... he was about as mixed in his message as Kerry can be. One minute he's accusing the Left of being intellectual elitist and the next he's accusing the Left of basing itself on nothing but emotions (warm fuzzy ones at that). It was similar to when FishHead accused Toblerone of being an optimist and a pessimist all in the one post at my blog. The Right like to play it both ways.

"but you can also look at the fact that nations who base most of their governing decisions on what you claim to be "social concience" don't do any better (and some much worse) than the "vile" US."

Well that's a subjective judgment for a start. I believe Australia did much better when we had a Labor Government (who aren't really left, but they're left of John Howard) because living standards rose, access to quality health and education improved. The Liberal Party believes Australia is better off at the moment because the didvide between rich and poor has increased and so the economy figures look better for the most part. But what's the point in a good economy if nobody benefits from it except for those who were already living comfortably? But anyway I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said in the first place.

"I personally think that the masses following some arcane "social conscience" no matter the success of such in the past is easily as "sheepish"."

I agree and I already said so. Both sides have sheeps who have been swept up in populism. The Left does not have exclusive rights to it. The reason the Right is characterised as having more of these people is because the Right has more support overall. This fact meant that the Right probably couldn't help but mainly pick up a whole bunch of idiots to supoort them. The majority of either Australia or the US don't understand politics or why they should vote for one side. I'd say that both the Left and the Right probably have an equal assortment of intellectuals, but the Right has more sheep.

I agree and I already said so. Both sides have sheeps who have been swept up in populism. The Left does not have exclusive rights to it. The reason the Right is characterised as having more of these people is because the Right has more support overall. This fact meant that the Right probably couldn't help but mainly pick up a whole bunch of idiots to supoort them. The majority of either Australia or the US don't understand politics or why they should vote for one side. I'd say that both the Left and the Right probably have an equal assortment of intellectuals, but the Right has more sheep.

well put. thank you.

warm fuzzy emotions?

would you prefer a cold hard rock?


pete