Comments on: The Democrat War on Science

By: On ‘Fracking,’ President Boxes Himself, America in | Environment Green

On ‘Fracking,’ President Boxes Himself, America in | Environment Green — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:03:14 +0000

[...] in 2012. While any honest study would exonerate the technique from the enviros baseless claims*, President Obama’s administration has demonstrated that it will skew the facts to achieve political…, so the truth doesn’t necessarily matter. Nonetheless, I am confident that the EPA’s won’t [...]

By: On ‘Fracking,’ President Boxes in Himself, America | Women's Team CO2 Footprint Project

Tue, 14 Jun 2011 03:27:50 +0000

By: On ‘Fracking,’ President Boxes Himself, America in

On ‘Fracking,’ President Boxes Himself, America in — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:06:53 +0000

[...] On ‘Fracking,’ President Boxes Himself, America inEPA Continues the E15 PushPrimer on President’s Clean Water Act Power GrabChamber’s Job Summit Keynoted by Leading Job DestroyerNERA Economic Consulting Releases Study on Combined Impacts of EPA Utility MACT Rule and Clean Air Transport RuleThe Democrat War on Science [...]

By: BobRGeologist

BobRGeologist — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:01:32 +0000

The EPA has established itself as a bureau interested only in increasing its power to regulate a gas CO2, vital to the growth of plant life, with its outrageous ruling of it as pollution. Along with other greenhouse gases, CO2 being a very minor component, the EPA intends to regulate the entire spectrum (nitrogen, water vapor and methane) as an endangerment for overheating the Earth. Here is where the real endangerment to life on this planet begins. The EPA doesn’t realize the hard fact that we are geologically in a glaciation mode today and several several degrees below a safe global temperature, due to plate tectonic rearrangement of our geography that began 50 million years ago. Also the fact our Sun is too weak at times to prevent us from lapsing back into Glaciation
#6. And, the fact that greenhouse gases are our safety blanket that keeps us from a permanent coat of ice. I believe it would be counterproductive and ruinously expensive to try to maintain ice in our polar regions.

By: William Yeatman

William Yeatman — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:58:59 +0000

My answer is yes. I’m seeing a shrink, but not for this. When it comes to choosing between a mountaintop and human livelihoods, the humans win every time with me.

By: William Yeatman

William Yeatman — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:56:40 +0000

Thanks for the feedback Thomas! Might I suggest that you sign up for my RSS feed?

By: Rum and Reason » How to Make the “Democrat War on Science” Argument (Supposing You Want To) | The Intersection

Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:00:10 +0000

[...] globalwarming.org, a climate “skeptic” site, I find this very interesting piece entitled the “Democrat War on Science,” by William Yeatman. It attempts to us some of [...]

By: How to Make the “Democrat War on Science” Argument (Supposing You Want To) | The Intersection | Discover Magazine

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 17:51:49 +0000

[...] globalwarming.org, a climate “skeptic” site, I find this very interesting piece entitled the “Democrat War on Science,” by William Yeatman. It attempts to us some of [...]

By: hebintn

hebintn — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:48:05 +0000

Re: Spruce 1 and all other surface mines. Bottom line… mountaintop removal mining is bad for everybody except the coal companies that make outrageous profits extracting coal from my mountains. A few job in comparison to the destruction done is nothing. These folks should get real mining jobs that go deep underground or better yet in alternative energy. And despite what the coal companies claim they leave behind wreckage beyond compare. Please Google “mountaintop coal mining” images. Look at a few of these masterpieces and tell me the earth is better off with us allowing this travesty to happen. If the answer is yes somebody needs to get psychiatric help.

By: Dr Bruce Goldberg

Dr Bruce Goldberg — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:45:07 +0000

The peer review process is indeed fundamental to modern science, but, like every other human endeavor, is susceptible to flaws and weaknesses. The quality of the process is vulnerable to the personal biases of the reviewers, their capability to understand the material being reviewed, and their motivation to do a fair and competent job. Scientific research is rife with politics. Yet, the overall process has far more integrity than most other human endeavors. The “war on science” will never end as long as its results adversely affect an infinite number of special interests.