you believe the US significantly impacts global climate? ive yet to have any of you tell me why the earth was warmer before humans amd fossil fuels. if the climate is indeed warming, why not debate how to deal with it rather than stop it? head scratching, at best.
It would be nice if folks just admitted that their ideology obliges them to pretend that there's no such thing as human-exacerbated global warming, rather than the climate models they haven't read.
It was refreshing to see someone post something about transitioning to nuclear, too. I've said for a long time that that's probably the on plausible alternative. Not that wind and solar can't be part of it, but the left wing pipe dream of solely wind and solar is simply woo-woo.
The least scientific people on the planet.
I think we should trust them over actual scientists.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
the coasts, causeways and floodplains after every storm? And why does the US taxpayer insure those homes at an actuarial loss?
Federal flood insurance only covers up to 250K.
We can debate its wisdom - or its cost - but it has nothing to do with climate change.
as to why we put so many assets along the coasts.
I also know that FEMA Flood Insurance has a limit, but it is also true that it requires taxpayer bailouts and is actuarily unsound.
It is in the red when disasters happen....which may well be more often.
Just raise the premiums and the problem will take care of itself.
...if it is a bad model. Raise the rates too much, and people won't buy it...but they still live there, and then we bail them out anyway, and government grows as it spends. Great system.
(no message)
Liberals sacrifice science for politics all the time:
Glad that's cleared up.
Wow.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
But what's the third option -
1. Born that way;
2. Chose to be that way.
3. Forced at gun point?
"What else could it possibly be?!" ... Arguing from incredulity is a logical fallacy; it is not science.
(no message)
That is a fact to date. Acknowledging that is not the same as saying people “choose” to be gay.
There are many biological and developmental factors that may result in sexual preference that remove it from being a “choice” but nevertheless do not make it a genetic predetermination.
Ned said that liberals are anti-science because "The Left believes that sexual attraction is genetic, even though we have no knowledge of any genes that determine sexual attraction."
I think a fair interpretation of that is that liberals have no reasonable scientific basis for thinking that any part of sexual attraction is genetic (Hence they are anti-science). You even concede that there are likely "biological factors", which presumably arise from genetics.
So are you saying that Ned thinks liberals are anti-science because they believe sexual attraction is genetic, when in reality is just "biological"? Is that really the cornerstone of that particular debate?
"Sexual attraction is genetic".
"No it isn't. It's biological, but not genetic".
"As a liberal, I reject your science!"
The liberal movement started positing the "sexual attraction is genetic" argument when they wanted to move the homosexuality debate out of the realm of imminently regulatable human choice and into the realm of non-regulatable human rights. They've been searching for a gene for some time now...mind you, this is a gene that is destined to remove itself from the gene pool every generation because it selects against sexual reproduction (the single most fatal flaw to any gene), so it is unlikely to be handed down from generation to generation, so it must be a very common mutation, happening all the time in every generation by chance. This could be, of course. But it is not science to believe that...it is hopeful thinking at best.
There could be sociological factors at play. There could be other factors. In the end, our brains are biological, so any choice we make is biological, but that doesn't mean our choices are genetically coded.
And their role in traits and behaviors and also how genes are passed on from generation to generation, how they are expressed, how combinations factor into it, etc.. Our understanding of genetics is continuously evolving. A decade ago, some scientists were claiming that red hair would be extinct in 50 years, recently that prediction has been proven false.
But I do agree that there has been an eagerness on the left to find the "gay gene" holy grail to back up the "born this way" idea. My view, as written below, is who cares?
If homosexuality is not 100% choice, then why on earth would it matter whether it was genetic, or some other biological factor? That seems like hair-splitting, since it doesn't seem to matter to the overall debate.
Does it make you anti-science to posit that the biological factors involved in sexual orientation derive from genetics? I've not read up on it, but why on earth would you need a "gay gene" at all? I would think sexual orientation would be influenced by one's balance of hormones, which logically seem to derive from heredity.
I am suggesting that there is no scientific evidence for a genetic cause. That is a simple fact. But the Left posits a genetic cause without evidence (that's the anti-science part) to gain certain political advantages. For example, government benefits can then be given as a matter of right, instead of as a result of successfully arguing costs & benefits in a Congressional floor debate. The Left is suggesting a scientific theory without evidence to shut down floor debate.
This is especially true on the transgender issue, and even on the abortion issue...both of which are well settled with regard to science, but not politically well settled. At least with homosexuality, you can say, "We haven't found the genes yet (or the other biological causes yet), so they may exist." You can't say that regarding the definitions of biological sex and the beginning of the biological life cycle. Those concepts are well settled, and you have to either deny the science (so your political argument is easier), or you have to acknowledge the science (and face up to the harder political argument). Using politics to change science is very Orwellian, to be sure, but at a minimum, it is also very anti-science.
It seems as though current scientific theory involves parts genetic, hormonal, and environmental. You may disagree, and that's fair.
But characterizing people that believe current scientific theory as anti-science is inaccurate.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
Even if it’s scientifically proven that there is no genetic cause, science certainly doesn’t rule out, and in fact likely supports, that there are equally determinative strong biological and developmental factors that make it something other than a conscious choice.
I have yet to meet a gay person that hasn’t said that the orientation and attraction is just part of who they are for as long as they can remember. I believe that and the actual scientific cause isn’t that important.
Chris was just promoting a stereotype to score political points, and I thought I would call him out on it.
left.
(no message)
(no message)
science as in Climate Science.
Fabulous you're trying to claim established genome trait science for the gay community when science hasn't yet been able to discern the science for gay and lesbians.
When you finish your paper on genomics, you'll publish for the rest of us to read, yes?
by not acknowledging that very specific fact.
The closest example to shine a light on that is the differences in identical twins.
I think a rational person can accept that there are preferences that should be accommodated by a society founded on the principles of individual liberty without needing to determine the reasons for the preference.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
want to spend trillions to change the climate.
any scientific data to suggest that we can make any significant impact to warrant such massive intrusions in our lives they cannot. When further asked how the Paris Accord will accomplish this with it's unbalanced raid on the US vaults with redistribution to other countries and no mechanism to guarantee it's proper use, they can't. When asked why the other countries didn't go ahead with the Paris Accord even though we stepped out (yet are still cutting CO2 emissions at record pace - better than any other country atm), they cannot. Wouldn't these countries stay in it if they thought the world was at stake? If they were willing to give it a go without bigger emitters China and India claiming that they will be brought along with time, why wouldn't they do the same with the US?
When asked why Leo DiCaprio flies to receive personal awards in his private jet, or why Occasio Cortez flies to Kansas to support a no chance Dem candidate, why Pope Francis is still flying around the world on record pace, or why Al Gore has the most energy sucking mansion in Tennessee, they have no answer. (wouldn't we expect people who truly this is a global crisis to cut back on egregious carbon footprint practices?)
And this is all assuming that we grant them every aspect of their argument which is a far from settled issue. It's interesting that they have a theory that the CO2 content of Land, water, and air is in a a delicate equilibrium, and they have now evolved this theory to acknowledge that it is a cyclic equilibrium to account for evidence discounting their previous theory (it's a living, breathing theory I guess). They further say that evil man has tipped that balance. Man accounts for only a minor contributor the CO2 in the atmosphere , but they are saying that a delicate equilibrium is being thrown off. Well then i guess the multple, unpredictable volcanic eruptions spewing more CO2, methane from trapped stores during eruptions puts more of these substances into the air than we do - in particular when considering the intermittant bu fairly frequent massive eruptions, then that is completely different and doesn't throw off the cycle in the same way (btw, this last point is a real trigger issue on the CC liberal religious fact check sites because - well because it's true and conflicts with their beliefs).
Show me actual credible science that confirms the benefit of the Paris Accord before we throw out our lifestyle, and fork over our cash - especially in unequal fashion. Show me an entity that can ensure that the many, many corrupt UN nations don't pocket the money we give them for themselves. Show me an agreement that holds the other major countries to the same expectations, and an agreement that includes China and India- the biggest present offenders. Finally, show me some behavior from the personal lives of people making the assertion that this is even a real issue in their own minds.
They are religious zealots who want to impose their wacky cult faith on the general population. They want Americans to "repent" with heavy taxes because we are "sinners"(heavy CO2 producers).
CC happens to align perfectly with their liberal world view goals. It offers the perfect excuse for what they want - socialist countries controlled by a global entity. Like Jimmy Swaggert, they judge others through the prism of their dogma, but conveniently fail to apply it to themselves.
"environmental" groups really hate man. What most see as progress, they see as a raping of Mother Earth. To them, they'd just as soon we not be here. Their views, for better or worse, are the foundation for much of what bubbles up out of the environmental agenda. It's not unlike liberal's disdain for the USA. Rather than a beacon on the hill to which all should aspire, they believe we are nothing more than evil and who should be punished for our imperialist attitude by dismantling everything the country has built.
There are those on the left who don’t believe in vaccines and there are those R’s who don’t believe in vaccines. - take florides in the water as an example. (John Birchers).
Funny you should mention GMO’s. I was just listening to some right wingers tell me how bad corn is for our health.
Your anti abortion rhetoric is consistent - you really don’t listen when others speak. Progressives don’t necessarily agree with abortion as an act but we do understand a woman’s rights to choose. So get off my lawn!
You’ post is just a tall pile of bullshit.
(no message)
paths?
===============
2011 hit that quickly became a gay anthem. Indeed, over the past 2 decades, researchers have turned up considerable evidence that homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice, but is rooted in a person's biology and at least in part determined by genetics. Yet actual “gay genes” have been elusive.
A new study of male twins, scheduled for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) in Baltimore, Maryland, today, could help explain that paradox. It finds that epigenetic effects, chemical modifications of the human genome that alter gene activity without changing the DNA sequence, may have a major influence on sexual orientation.
The new work, from Eric Vilain's lab at the University of California (UC), Los Angeles, is “exciting” and “long overdue,” says William Rice, an evolutionary geneticist at UC Santa Barbara, who proposed in 2012 that epigenetics plays a role in sexual orientation. But Rice and others caution that the research is still preliminary and based on a small sample. Researchers thought they were hot on the trail of “gay genes” in 1993, when a team led by geneticist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute reported in Science that one or more genes for homosexuality had to reside on Xq28, a large region on the X chromosome. The discovery generated worldwide headlines, but some teams were unable to replicate the findings and the actual genes have not been found—not even by a team that vindicated Hamer's identification of Xq28 in a sample size 10 times larger than his last year. Twin studies suggested, moreover, that gene sequences can't be the full explanation. For example, the identical twin of a gay man, despite having the same genome, only has a 20% to 50% chance of being gay himself.
That's why some have suggested that epigenetics—instead of or in addition to traditional genetics—might be involved. During development, chromosomes are subject to chemical changes that don't affect the nucleotide sequence but can turn genes on or off; the best known example is methylation, in which a methyl group is attached to specific DNA regions. Such “epi-marks” can remain in place for a lifetime, but most are erased when eggs and sperm are produced, so that a fetus starts with a blank slate. Recent studies, however, have shown that some marks are passed on to the next generation.
In a 2012 paper, Rice and his colleagues suggested that such unerased epi-marks might lead to homosexuality when they are passed on from father to daughter or from mother to son. Specifically, they argued that inherited marks that influence a fetus's sensitivity to testosterone in the womb might “masculinize” the brains of girls and “feminize” those of boys, leading to same-sex attraction.
Such ideas inspired Tuck Ngun, a postdoc in Vilain's lab, to study the methylation patterns at 140,000 regions in the DNA of 37 pairs of male identical twins who were discordant—meaning that one was gay and the other straight—and 10 pairs who were both gay. After several rounds of analysis—with the help of a specially developed machine-learning algorithm—the team identified five regions in the genome where the methylation pattern appears very closely linked to sexual orientation. One gene is important for nerve conduction, whereas another has been implicated in immune functions.
To test how important the five regions are, the team divided the discordant twin pairs into two groups. They looked at the associations between specific epi-marks and sexual orientation in one group,
I think you'd find that most liberals would agree that x and y chromosomes determine the body parts you are born with. I think the difference is how you start defining the gender people associate with. I don't think there are people on the right deny that some people with daddy parts identify with being a woman. The disagreement is to the definition of such a person, not to their physical make up and how it got there.
You said gender. and body parts...which indicate that you are trying to deny science without appearing to deny it, by using different, non-scientific euphemisms. Can you answer the question? I'm asking about the biological sex of an animal, and whether the biological sex is deteremined by specific chromosomes that science has identified.
X and Y chromosomes determine whether you are born with male genitalia or female genitalia. I doubt anyone denies that science.
It may be that people use the words "biological sex" to mean different things, but that is a pedantic disagreement, not a scientific disagreement.
How does one determine if a dog is male or female?
Do you ask it? Of course not.
You can do a DNA test. Or, as a proxy for a DNA test, you can check their genitalia (although in certain medical cases, that may or may not be definitive). Either way, science shows that sex is a biological state which is objectively demonstrable. Only the Left denies this.
Maybe we should leave science alone, and just have a political debate about the kind of society we want. We don't have to throw science under the bus as well.
If we both believe in the same scientific cause and effect, then what does it matter if it's called a "Fred", a "biological sex" or a "polished turd"?
(no message)
What in particular most anti-GMO people are talking about is biologically altered foods with the use of changing a plants actual DNA.
My question to you is, now that you’ve found Science are you on board with the 97% of scientists who say man is negatively causing Climate Change ?
(no message)
(no message)
I am not really aware of the arguments that it is not life so I can't speak to it. Do people on the left and right disagree as to the physical traits of a fetus?
1) The "It's her body" argument: The fetus is not an independent human life, even though it has a unique set of DNA that didn't exist before conception and will remain unchanged until the death of the baby if the baby is not aborted -- this is the anti-science part. The fetus is just a growth in a woman's body, so we can remove it at any time, even during birth (per the VA governor). The only person in the equation is the mother (funny word "mother," since it implies a child).
2) The fetus is a human life, but it is not afforded human rights because we don't want to afford it human rights. This is not anti-science, but it is evil.
Take your pick.
The fetus is not an independent human life, even though it has a unique set of DNA that didn't exist before conception and will remain unchanged until the death of the baby if the baby is not aborted -- this is the anti-science part.
Do Pro-Choice people claim that the DNA of the fetus is not unique? Are they claiming that the science showing that a fetus has a unique set of DNA is a "hoax"?
Or do Pro-Choice people acknowledge that the fetus has a unique set of DNA, but disagree that this factor alone defines "independent human life".
In other words, I still think we are boiling down to definitions, unless you have actively heard a Hoax Theory.
[EDIT - here is something I found in a search for pro-choice arguments - it appears to admit that human life begins at conception]
Link: https://www.thoughtco.com/arguments-for-and-against-abortion-3534153
And, that's the point.
But, I will admit that I have noticed a trend in the past 10 years: The pro-choice side has been trending towards conceding basic human life science, and instead resort to the various (always evil) ideas of stripping away human rights from innocent people. So, you've got that going for you: You guys are improving your science. You will have to decide if it is better that you are acknowledging that you are killing children when you abort them.
(no message)
(no message)
The only ones I know are also followers of Q (i.e., easily duped by right-wing conspiracy theories).
Also, do you deny that DDT nearly caused the extinction of nearly every raptor on the planet?
Also, hate to burst your bubble, but the current scientific consensus is that genetics likely plays a role (although not the only role) in sexuality. See link. Not surprised that you wouldn't have seen this.
Link: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2155810-what-do-the-new-gay-genes-tell-us-about-sexual-orientation/
The only anti-vaccers I know are liberal. (I don't even know what Q is...a character from Star Trek, right?) But throw that example out if you want.
Do you deny that DDT would save the lives of millions of humans in the third world? Having said that, you make a good point. I think that item is a weak point in my list. You could say, after all, that being anti-DDT is a value judgement (raptors are more important than humans), and not being actually anti-science.
As far as genes causing people to be attracted to the same sex...your link doesn't show that.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
You haven't posted a factual post in decades.
Life must be nice in the cocoon, which nothing penetrates that is unwelcome.
And of course abortion comes up, because that’s at the heart of everything for you. Of course.
At least MAS and DRO are trying. You gave up very quickly.
...say it is up to those who point out that they are unfounded and unsupported to prove you wrong.
I decline to participate.
(no message)
It seems to be more of a thing for upper-class mothers who have a lot of time on their hands.
I'm of course in complete agreement on the 82 genders nonsense.
None of that changes that the Right ignores science on human-exacerbated global warming.
(no message)