Why has Science Become Politicized?

I'm guessing you're looking for "hit by sunlight".
This argument is just as moronic.
"both planets are round, therefore they must have identical properties"

 

If you don't mind, do your part of the argument and i shall handle my end.

In your argument, the Sunlight does not hit the two planets, does it?

 

I never said that, I dispute that man has anything more than a minuscule effect .

 

Maybe Helios (Greek Sun God) requires we throw a virgin into a volcano?

 

Where's the proof?

 

Russia has a population of 146 million and an inefficient manufacturing infrastructure compared to Canada with only 36 million and a much more modern manufacturing infrastructure.

 

Ignorance of science is rampant amongst science deniers!

Why not try comparing an apple to a asteroid instead? That would be just as nonsensical.

 

What is Man doing to Mars given it's ice caps are vanishing fairly fast?

 

Just in case you missed this part of my post I will repeat it again.

Ignorance of science is rampant amongst science deniers!

 

What is Man doing to Mars given it's ice caps are vanishing fairly fast? Just answer that question with a link to a reliable news source. You can do that can't you?

 

Do you have evidence that the amount of sunlight hitting both planets has increased besides one scientist's theory in 2007?

Because there's a lot of evidence that Mars shifts between ice ages a lot faster than ours due to an increased "wobbling" effect.

 

I second that. While evolution has a lot of supporting evidence it still has scientific holes big enough to drive a truck through.

 

Science has become politicized because of its funding source. Science is overwhelmingly funded by academia, and academia is overwhelmingly leftist. Thankfully, most scientific areas are apolitical, so this dynamic doesn't usually come into play. All scientific endeavors begin with a hypothesis in mind, and academia decides which hypothesis to fund. Since Particle Physics does not have an outside political bent, a wide range of hypothesis are funded, and you end up with non partisan output as a result. Since AGW is pushed by far left environmentalists, it has a decidedly political bent, and leftist academia is going to fund almost exclusively, pro AGW hypothesis, and end up with a partisan output as a result.

Ironically, most leftists will be the first to dismiss any scientific output funded by non academic sources as biased, but at the same time, fail to acknowledge the bias inherent from leftist academia. They instead try to pretend like academia is apolitical, which is utterly preposterous.

 

I guess he can't, no surprises here.

 

I find it interesting how you go all scientific on this issue when Mars is involved but revert back to blaming man for earth climate.

The simple reason on earth man gets blamed is that is the way the politicians of the Democratic party can leverage this to controlling the lives of Americans. It is part of the Cloward/Piven strategy.

 

This looks like solid science to me.

 

But you would make it a crime to prove a scientific theory false. The left doesn't even want the global warming theory criticized, much less actually tested against reality. If you lived in the 19th century and someone suggested that the conservation of matter was bullshit, you'd want that person silenced. "The Conservation of Matter is a Scientific Theory! It's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt!" That is, until Einstein came along and showed that it was bullshit in 1905.

 

No, it shows that it works. You seem to have a problem distinguishing theory from fact, which shows that you are no scientist. Theories are held because they work, not because they are true. Truth in science is always subject to future theories that work better than the old theories. If someone comes up with a theory that works better tomorrow, we'll adopt that.

 

Like you. Your quoted section says "becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon" while you say "tested and proven to be correct". There's a vast world of difference between those two statements. No scientist will ever say a theory has been "proven to be correct" because he knows it never can be. All it can do is provide a valid explanation of a phenomenon, but always be open to refutation by a better explanation.

 

Because the left cannot stop debate on climate change by calling the right racist. This is their new trump card to stop debate of their ideas.

If you accept climate change as being contributed to by humans, but ask to what degree, or question the models that have never come true, you are now a "science denier", which is basically the same thing as playing the race card, and calling you as silly as holocaust deniers, in a back handed way.

 

I don't see any disconnect here. I think that there's scientific evidence in support of my own conclusion.

The reason man gets blamed is because the vast majority of scientists have examined the data and concluded human economic activity is the likeliest cause of climate change on earth.

 

This isn't a source, it's data on charts.

 

And it is Thursday as well.

 

That Ricky should be on DWTS.

 

Some have, not the vast majority.

Very informed scientists dispute what you tell me.