Why can't cons deal with reality?

Question

EXAMPLE 1:

In response to me using data from www.whitehouse.gov proving Keynesian Democrats are superior to tax cuts for the rich supply side Republicans:

"like we believe anything the gov't puts out..... "
- badjansenn = CON
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnXhLCiLDrnF0uFxh2lkjexIzKIX?qid=20070404133307AAyInZM

==========================

EXAMPLE 2:

In response to citing the U.S. Geological Survey proving man produces over 150 times more CO2 then all volcanic activity combined.

""There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Harry S. Truman, 1948.
I don't believe anything you have written above."
- regerruged = CON

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApQoXs9fARlzix_fgrfrAarty6IX?qid=20070405154239AA3Dlta

EXAMPLE 3:

In response to a liberal stating that a Pew Research poll said a majority of Americans supported a time table for Iraq.

"Polls are written by groups with an agenda; and yes our media has an agenda."
- netjr = CON
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsPKoS1rmlFxxqIMU_gbe6vty6IX?qid=20070407181151AAIRwYn&show=7#profile-info-c540847960041cd0939d36acb73fe543aa

EXAMPLE 4:

On citing how all the well established scientific organizations involved in climatic, geologic, and meteorologic research (including PRIVATE scientific organizations funded by membership dues like the Geological Society of America and the American Meteorological Society) and how they have official statements in support of man made global warming:

"They are all funded by government grants. The media can sell anything to a liberal like you. Get the facts from independent non-government sources"
- "GREAT_AMERICAN" = con
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar1Q7rQvxJUlLXDeWM2FBmLty6IX?qid=20070501165556AAmhhoI

NOTE: THE LIST I POSTED INCLUDED (((PRIVATE))) MEMBER FUNDED SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS

libstick,

Notice you are citing political websites. Don't show me political websites. Show me the offical websites of SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS. These represents hundreds if not tens of thousands of scientists.

Answer 1

Edit: Take another look they are not government sites, in fact one is from Missouri State University.




Who's reality: Yours... here is mine,,,

Global Warming;
Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts
J. Scott Armstrong, Kesten Green, Energy and Environment (forthcoming)

Authors audited the forecasting process used by the IPCC WGI Report and found that it violated 72 of 89 principles of forecasting. From a forecasting standpoint, authors conclude that claims the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying it will get colder.

Hysteria’s History: Environmental Alarmism in Context
Amy Kalieta, Gregory Forbes, Pacific Research Institute, 21 September 2007

The tragedy of environmental hysteria is twofold: it is often a detrimental perversion of the truth— and it has all happened before.

The Adverse Impacts of Cap and Trade Regulations
Aurthur Laffer & Wayne Winegarden, September 2007

Famed economist Arthur Laffer says in a new study that implementing a cap-and-trade system for managing greenhouse gas emissions could cost the average family $10,800 in lost income. Laffer likens the proposed global warming policy to a 1970s-era energy crunch.

500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man Made Global Warming Scares
Dennis T Avery, Hudson Institute, 14 September 2007

The following list includes more than 500 qualified researchers, their home institutions, and the peer-reviewed studies they have published in professional journals providing historic and/or physical proxy evidence that:

Biofuels: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease?
Richard Doornbosch and Ronald Steenblik, OECD, 11 September 2007

OECD’s determines that biofuels benefits not commensurate with their environmental and humanitarian costs.

Europe’s Dirty Little Secret: Why the EU Emissions Trading Scheme isn’t Working
Open Europe, August 2007

The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is supposed to be the EU’s main policy tool for reducing emissions. But so far, it has been an embarrassing failure.

A Reality Check on Efforts to Reduce GHG Emissions in California, Oregon, the Northeast and Europe
American Council for Capital Formation, August 2007

On Keynesian Democrats:

Lawmakers and reporters often repeat the Keynesian myth that government spending "pumps new money into the economy." They assert that if the economy's total demand is lacking, government can act as a consumer and make purchases itself. Since the gross domestic product (GDP) is the sum of all purchases on final goods and services, these government purchases will add to GDP.


On public opinion polls:
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Public Opinion Polls
Russell D. Renka
Professor of Political Science
Southeast Missouri State University

Answer 2

I firmly believe that you have dilgently looked up sources that support your beliefs. And I believe that they are valid, qualified scientific sources that have plenty of documentation and research to back up their findings. I further believe that both you and they believe they are unbiased. I would ask however if you looked for any evidence to disprove your beliefs? Even among the greatest of scientific minds and economic theorists there is disagreement. Any truely unbiased researcher will not only look for supporting documentation but contradictory documentation. Those people who dismissed your sources out of hand were quite rude.
On economic theories, the greatest minds simply disagree. There is no way around it. Economics has never been a science that could be proven because peoples beliefs get in the way of its application.
20 years ago it was common wisdom that one volcanic erution emitted more pollution than mankind could generate in 50 years. Some people find it hard to accept new data. And when they learned this handy pearl of wisdom, it was mostly sulfuric acid they were concerned about rather than CO2.
Scientific minds differ on many issues. And many people will see what they want to see in numbers and statistics. So often even when something seems like absolute proof to one person it looks like nothing, or something else to another. It is often not that they can't deal with reality, but that they simply don't see reality the same way you do.

Answer 3

hmmm . . . let's see . . . "rich supply side Republicans" . . . well, yep . . . I'll go with them on this one

Answer 4

Why cant Lubs