Nobody moo'd at you, nobody said you had to agree with anybody else.
You however have NOT considered expert opinion. You declared something bad science despite many expert scientists defending it. You didn't offer any supporting evidence for why your view should be more valid than their expert opinion, you didn't offer any data to debunk the grounds for their defence.

You just ignored them - and then you claim to "consider" their views. You haven't ACTUALLY considered ANYTHING unless you have look at the supporting arguments and evidence and considered counter arguments and evidence and had the expertise t(whether by yourself or acquired through another expert) to actually compare which set of evidence is more accurate or valid.

That's exactly the fallacy that drives the climate-change denial movement. Somebody makes a convincing sounding argument, presents what he thinks is evidence and people are fooled by it because they don't go the next step to see how that supposed evidence have held up to scrutiny - which would quickly show that it's all been thoroughly debunked by numerous independent studies.

Scepticism does not elevate one above expertise, and citing expertise is NOT an appeal to authority fallacy.

But only an idiot refuses to consider expert opinion before making up their mind. You're not a unique rebel, you're just an ignorant fool.

> The increase of gold is negligible.

Except when it's not... if a sudden surge of gold increase does happen - then there are no systems in place to counter inflation through things like interest hikes, instant hyper-inflation.
Exactly what destroyed the Spanish empire. Too much gold and silver from the Americas - instant riches, collapse of the gold based currency.

That is not, in fact, always possible to do.

Not to mention... how long do you think it will take to scrub the identities of people out of a 30 year study involving tens of thousands of individuals ?
5 years ? 10 years ?

Now ask yourself, how much will all this cost ? The reps only gave them 1 million a year to do it - despite the congressional budget office saying this law would cost 250 million a year to implement and THAT figure requires the EPA to cut it's annual studies in HALF.

I would rather have as many studies as possible informing research, not cut the number in half. And this law would make it zero, that's exactly what this law is DESIGNED to do - it's designed to destroy the EPA without having to go through the difficulties of getting people to accept it being disbanded entirely. It completely neutralizes them however. You will never see another regulation about anything harmful ever again if this passes.

And what about all the existing studies that were done before this law, with good solid scientific result but confidential patient information in it ?

Oh we can't use those anymore ? We have to redo them. Many of them were longitudinal studies spanning decades. I'm sure the republicans would love us to have to do them over, and scrap all the good regulations they led to and not be able to regulate them again for 3 or 4 decades while we redo solid scientific studies that got thrown out for no other reason than having been done before this law passed.

If you hate secret science so much, lobby to have trade secret laws removed from pharmaceutical companies - we have a current deluge of medicine studies that are utterly impossible to reproduce because ACTUAL INGREDIENTS in the medicine given are not included on the bases of "trade secrets" - yet we're expected to trust the results of studies by commercial entities who WANT a specific outcome when they don't have to give us the information needed to do a similar study of our own ?

You don't NEED patient data to be reproducible, you DO need ingredient data.

So why is the republicans trying to block science without patient data while PROTECTING companies that refuse to reveal ingredient data ?

Every major science group in the country has opposed this bill, all the scientists oppose it.
Considering that they all love and live the scientific method, if this law was what it says it is, they would be supporting it.

You should reconsider judging a law by what republicans claim it does.

>What's weird about making the data from scientific studies publically available? Frankly, I think the data from all government funded research should be public domain.

My first instinct was the same, until I read the article (I know I know).
The data in question is MEDICAL data, covered by confidentiality laws.

That is critical for environmental regulation - you can't just SAY the stuff hurts people or don't hurt people - you need science. But medical data cannot be publicly disclosed in general.

You can require opt-in but that gets very limiting and automatically introduces bias in the results - it actually makes the data LESS rigorous and verified - this is what the republicans are proposing while furthermore limiting the budget for IMPLEMENTING these regulations to just one million dollars a year - the CBO estimates it would cost at least 250 million dollars and even then only if the EPA cuts the number of studies it does in half.

In short, the "secret science" thing is a lie, this law is nothing but an attempt to kill the EPA without having to actually get rid of it. It's the equivalent to a law that says "police investigating crimes may not speak to witnesses, collect evidence or arrest anybody who doesn't confess".

Of republicans declaring that science isn't science if it's "secret" and this makes the bills good because they haven't actually read the article and has no idea what "secret" MEANS in this context.

Refunding the remaining money and making the work they managed to get done available to the community is a decent way to act here. In a bankruptcy case your remaining assets would go to your creditors.
In this case they are giving those assets back to the people who paid for them.

That means the product could still come into existence or form the beginnings of other even better designs.

All in all, that was actually quite decent of them.

Does that even exist ?
Lifelong liberal and I have never been there nor heard of it.

So assuming it does, it doesn't actually matter if a site filled with complete bullshit (but with a leftwing slant) actually dissapears since nobody was using it anyway.

>The 6) if false, even if a common predecessor, that of human was not an ape.

The common ancestor of all homo species was an ape. So was the earlier common ancestor of humans AND chimps.
It was the chimplike ancestor of man, and at the same time the man-like ancestor of chimps.

It was a primate without a tail - it was an ape.
Even further back we shared a common ancestor with gorrillas, further than that with orangs and much further than that with monkeys.

I did actually. Websites DEBUNKING pseudo-scientific nonsence shouldn't be getting downgraded !

When you can't find a page about antivaxxing or climate denial, you'll know it worked.

You do that already. Unless you spend your days in a Faraday cage in the dark.
You do KNOW that light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum right ?

Not to mention the fact that the earth itself generates a massive magnetic field ? You are aware that this magnetic field is actually electromagnetic right ?

You may as well ask if it's "really a good idea to spend 8 hours a day at the bottom of a large gravity well".

On the other hand, a hacker who actually gave her child a SQL injection as legal name... now that's some funny shit right there !