Shared publicly  - 
 
This rocks!
President Barack Obama on Thursday went after his potential Republican opponents for their resistance to green energy solutions, likening them to members of the “Flat-Earth Society.” In a speech at Pr...
10
5
Mat Lee's profile photoDaniel M.'s profile photodanika risher's profile photoBryan Maher's profile photo
24 comments
 
No doubt the right wing hate machine will become apoplectic about this...
 
Secret Service must not have noticed that flaming ginger with the red tie behind him. That's a legit security threat.
 
+Dave Schwab ...you'd think the Secret Service would have stopped that soulless animal at the door.
 
Ah this reminds me about Gordon Brown and when he called climate change deniers "flat-earthers" back in 2010. Good stuff!
 
+Michael Pate is that some type of right wing nut job link you're sharing with us here?
 
+Ole Olson he's just sharing right wing butthurt, can't you tell? :)
 
It's a metaphor +Michael Pate. Conservative anti-science nuts have an ignorance that would be comparable to flat-earthers. They are incapable of listening to reason, which is why these wingnuts don't even believe in climate change.
 
+Ole Olson I doubt there is a single Republican out there who is more anti-science than President Obama. Supporting the development of alternative fuels is fine and something we should do - with the understanding that any real benefit from that sort of research is probably decades away at the earliest. Our current infrastructure requires oil. We can either drill for it ourselves, pipeline it in from Canada, or rely on shipments from countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela who more often than not have interests that conflict with ours. Spending Billions of Tax-Payer Dollars on Green Companies just because it scores him a few points with the environmental lobby is no way to run an economy and we are feeling the effects of it right now. It is not Conservatives who need to listen to reason.
 
I would have to see the criteria for your first sentence +Michael Pate. That seems like an absurd statement to me.
 
... there's always the one person out there who doesn't get the joke and screws up the moment for everybody else. lol
 
+David Wood From the Article: Heres the sad thing, Obama explained to the friendly crowd. Lately weve heard a lot of professional politicians a lot of the folks who are running for a certain office, who shall go unnamed theyve been talking down new sources of energy. They dismiss wind power. They dismiss solar power. They make jokes about biofuels. They were against raising fuel standards. I guess they like gas guzzlers. They think thats good for our future.

Assuming that every prediction in this article is correct http://thegreenmarket.blogspot.com/2012/03/renewable-energy-can-replace-fossil.html - why was the President talking about things that are at least 20 years away when talking about the fuel prices in 2012? Is his record on renewable energy any better or any worse than the last President? http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9886334-54.html http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/05/25/the-greatest-myth-of-the-george-w-bush-presidency/
 
well then +Michael Pate you need to work on your sense of humor or at least try to gauge how serious a reaction is going on in comments...
 
+Michael Pate you are suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance if you honestly think Obama is more anti-science than the Republicans. I mean seriously, there is zero point in continuing this conversation if you cannot grasp that simple truth. The Earth is not flat, and pi does not equal 3 no matter how many times you and the Republicans try to repeat it is (metaphorically speaking of course).
 
+Ole Olson I don't know what we are disagreeing about exactly. Of course the Earth is not flat - Eratosthenes knew that more than 2,000 years ago and most informed people since. If you know of a Republican Candidate who has stated that pi is equal to 3 please cite it because I haven't run across it. President Obama has clearly shown an anti-science stance by funneling Federal Funds to companies like Solyndra http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/04/why-did-solyndra-fail-so-spectacularly/ and Fisker http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/03/15/10-reasons-why-fisker-may-be-worse-solyndra not because they had any scientific or economic value but for crass political reasons.
 
+Michael Pate , you're wasting your breath on these people who are anti-Republican for the sake of being so. I dislike Republicans as much as the next sane guy but I don't ever let myself ignore facts when they don't mesh with my prejudices.

These guys are all ass clowns.
 
How quaint. +Kevin Shutt comes bursting in here with a bunch of ad hominems, and completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of Republicans don't even believe in evolution, much less anthropogenic climate change. There's a reason why only 6% of all scientists are Republican you ignoramus. Rational thinking is in conflict with conservative dogma.
 
My exception to +Michael Pate 's statement was centered more around his confusion between anti-science and innovation. Trying to encourage confidence and innovation in an unproven concept (like energy alternatives) is not anti-scientific. You can argue the cost/benefit analysis and make your arguments there. But the concept works, you just have to find a way to intergrate it into our current stratagies. Will it work? Who knows, but comparing Obama's push for this energy policy cannot be compared to people who deny the scientific concesus of the age of the earth, how life-forms evolve, and that the climate is changing. Republicans have argued against these topics by attacking the science and the scientists instead of using logical arguments. What's more, they push policy that marginalizes real scientific breakthroughs just because the disagree with it politcally. That's anti-science.

I appreciate +Michael Pate engaging in a spirited debate and despite the fact we disagree, he is at least more agreeable than +Kevin Shutt .
Add a comment...