Thanks for the chuckle, Chuck-O.

Thank you for reminding me what I forgot: Liberals are arrogant, closed-minded, AND prone to spewing disconnected talking points when contradicted.

That makes no sense. It’s in the Republican party platform to ban gay marriage and that’s basically what Bush ran on in 2004. Conservatives are against the scientific truth on evolution and climate change just because it conflicts with religious ideological views and other ideas.

Conservatism, by its very essence, is about taking society and traveling back in time – back to a period where we didn’t have this much progress. Regressivism in a nutshell IS close-mindedness.

Liberalism is about the future, the ultimate belief that we can progress and become a better society as we learn new things and when we face new challenges.

>The idea that we don’t believe in science is a perjorative stereotype.

Unfortunately it is. I wish we had two parties who were as pro-science. It honestly would make voting a much more difficult choice.

No, liberals are arrogant and closed-minded.

Yes, it’s fine to question additives in vaccinations, demand adequate testing, etc. But to act like they’re not necessary and that nutrition will solve your ills really is a flat earth mentality. It’s about being judicious. I don’t need to worry about cholera in the US, but if I’m traveling to a place that has it, I should be prepared. With the swine flu, if you are in one of the high risk groups, you should absolutely seriously weigh your ‘belief system’ with the risk of morbidity/mortality from getting the disease itself.

The science of a subject is never ‘over’ but it can be generically conclusive on a micro level at a particular place and time. He should more likely apply his skepticism to the subject of GW, becuase there is still much to know about this subject. The area of meterology is skimpy, let alone the study over long term climate and it’s implication over many years. It has to be looked at in order to keep the subject on course, so that you don’t miss something important. Example, if you kneejerk CO2 you may be ignoring other factors that could be important, more important or could subjegate CO2 entirely. And long term implications are speculative at best.

The jury is never out, but on the subject of a new contagious disease that kills the young and one that few have any natural or partial immunity to, should be scrutinized much more quickly and a decision made on the basis of immediate risk not some generic kneejerk ‘ Ah dont do no vaccinations’. Btw, there is about the same amount of ‘mercury’ in a dose of vaccine as there is if you ate a piece of tuna.

Would Bill freak if he knew that heavy metals existed naturally in the soil? Like if all technology were to suddenly disappear, and he was living back in the cave days, t hat he would still be exposed to lead in common dirt?

One thing to mention is that when you have a lot of people vaccinated, there are a bunch of people who can now run around more safely who are unvaccinated because of herd immunity. The herd is protective of the individual. But all you need is a number of people not doing it, and you reach a tipping point where there will be an outbreak of something. See things like measles outbreaks on college campuses for reference.

But with H1N1, it’s everywhere now. It’s battle stations and you have to quickly make a choice. This is a bigger issue than seasonal flu. The bulk of the population barring the very old, is vulnerable. Just found out that it’s a cousin of the 1918 flu that was so virulent. The good thing about that, is that older folks were exposed to it partially in the 30′s and 40′s. The bad thing, the rest of us wasn’t. Complications are the key thing, here.

Bill used to be good but Matthews hit it on the head, he is acting like Cruise with Scientology. It’s more than just ‘I’m questioning’, it’s more flat earth thinking from someone who ironically condemns flat earth thinking.

Btw, I was a science major and worked in healthcare for many years. I’m also a Republican. The idea that we don’t believe in science is a perjorative stereotype.

I’m not sure I agree with that outlook — at least, not in this particular case. But that’s what’s driving the Becks and Limbaughs — not some kind of “anti-science” perspective.

.

Sorry, I forgot. Reality has a liberal bias.

He’s not pro-science, he’s pro-liberal. He only cares about science when repeating the word “science” can be used to raise other people’s taxes.

He was great back then!

It’s hard to deny that there is a bit of irony that Bill Maher, who’ve kept making the argument that Republicans are anti-intellectuals and believe that science is still out on science (something I agree with and is the primary reason I can’t vote Republican) – now believes that non-western, traditional medicine somehow is more accurate than modern scientific medicine? It just perplexes me, because he’s so pro-science on every other single issue.

It is fine to be a skeptic, but sometimes you just go overboard – ignoring all existing evidence which overwhelmingly show in favor of the general scientific opinion, and this is an instance of that.