Science

[ATM]

Too many people, especially scientists, ignore the central tenets of science in order to pursue agendas. Science does not and cannot "prove" anything, it can only fail to disprove. Questioning hypotheses, results and conclusions is the very heart of science.

Well said.

You might want to wander over to the bull**** 9/11 conspiracy thread. You'll be quickly pummeled with that attitude!

Some will try, they will even yell "Prove it!" or possibly "Science!" as they do so. They will also roll their eyes at you, so be ready for that.

 

[PistolBob]

he and bill Nye the Science guy are both political shills. Where's Don Herbert when we need him.

 

[ATM]

...Act like you're trying to hide something and I'm going to suspect you're trying to hide something.

I have to agree with this.

 

[Route 45]

A perfect example of someone who has stopped thinking vs. an inquisitive mind.

Eat right, exercise, die anyway

Science has limits. But don't mistake me for a science denier as I am an engineer, science and math are my go-to choices in areas where they can be rationally applied. On climate change I tend to hew to the viewpoint best expressed by Scott Adams; to whit that complex formulas, composed of poorly understood variables and interelation of same, have never worked well for predictive purposes (see:economics) and until climate science can settle on one equation as best rather than a suite of such, it will not be able to make a convincing case that such prediction is possible and reliable. Without the ability to predict the results of actions to mitigate climate change, or even tell whether man-made actions will be of sufficient magnitude in their effects to matter, it is foolish to make changes in economies that may cause more harm than good. These people have had more than twenty years to come up with at least some basic outline of a mathematical relationship and they still cannot separate the dependant variables from the independent ones. As in careful investment strategies, no investment worth making ever needs to be made 'right now, or the opportunity will be lost' - from such haste are fools and their money translocated

I stand corrected.

 

[rhino]

]
I guess one of the main reasons I believe in the science of man-made global warming is that there is no profit motive for the vast majority of scientists out there. Some yes, sure, but the vast majority? No. It isn't like they all bought stock in Tesla or solar panel technology and now want to make gazillions on their new companies. They are just following where their studies have led them. Coal companies, oil companies, natural gas companies on the other hand...? They have a vested, financial interest in keeping the status quo. Investing in new technologies and alternate venues would cost billions of dollars in the short term, so why go along when your bottom line will be hurt and your investors unhappy? I also believe in the short sightedness of many humans, something I think most on here would agree with.

[/FONT]

False. You are apparently not familiar with how research grants work or how researchers at academic institutions get paid.

 

[BugI02]

I stand corrected.

View attachment 55118

 

[Leadeye]

Modern media science isn't fit to shine the shoes of people like Jonas Salk.

 

[Denny347]

To my thinking the beauty of science is that it always questions itself. It seeks truth and is willing to course correct when proven wrong. There is no ego in pure science, only the search for the truth.

The thing is, I also believe it is better to go with what is proven by all testing now, not what may or may not be confirmed in the future. Once a scientific theory is proven or dis-proven, go with that "new" truth. There is nothing wrong with admitting you weren't 100% correct 30 years ago. This is how we survive longer and longer, how modern medicine has improved our lives and increased our likelihood of surviving cancer along with numerous other illnesses.

As to global warming I think the scientific community would completely agree that temperatures have risen and fallen significantly over the billion year history of our planet. It isn't that we have global warming, but rather the RATE at which the planet is warming. Huge swathes of coral reefs have already been destroyed by an increase of only 2 degrees. Had that 2 degree rise in temperature occurred over several thousand years, or even several hundred, the damage may have been far less. However it has occurred over less than 100 years. Bad juju for coral reefs. This loss then impacts fish, ocean PH levels, currents, etc etc etc.

There are now reports of good wine coming out of England. Yes, the Brits making good wine. Whooda thunk? The reason they can do this in some larger areas now is because of the temperature rise allowing better grapes to grow, so good for them.

The problem will potentially arise when Someplace like Indiana can no longer grow corn or soybeans in a short timespan of 20 years? How quickly could farmers and industry respond. It isn't that we cannot respond, but rather perhaps not fast enough.

I guess one of the main reasons I believe in the science of man-made global warming is that there is no profit motive for the vast majority of scientists out there. Some yes, sure, but the vast majority? No. It isn't like they all bought stock in Tesla or solar panel technology and now want to make gazillions on their new companies. They are just following where their studies have led them. Coal companies, oil companies, natural gas companies on the other hand...? They have a vested, financial interest in keeping the status quo. Investing in new technologies and alternate venues would cost billions of dollars in the short term, so why go along when your bottom line will be hurt and your investors unhappy? I also believe in the short sightedness of many humans, something I think most on here would agree with.

But skipping the idea of global warming it does seem like the search for truth is itself derided in some circles due to its flexible nature. Years ago many studies initially found a link between cholesterol and heart disease, so we did further studies along with developing drugs to reduce cholesterol. Today, more and more studies are showing the link we once thought was there isn't, so science is derided for not getting it right the first time. Except that there was no intent to deceive the public, only to protect. Scientists were wrong - possibly. Yet now we have pharmaceutical companies that have invested billions of dollars in cholesterol busting drug research and make tens of billions of dollars selling those drugs. They aren't exactly on the express train to embrace the new science and stop pushing their pills.

And yet scientists can be their own worst enemy by deriding people without having an honest discourse. While I believe in vaccinating children, there are honest risks to getting a vaccine. I believe the people who cite those risks as an excuse not to vaccinate are wrong, but I'm not going to insult them or deny that there are risks. My approach would be to show a risk/reward analysis of vaccines. However, all too often those who support the "science" of vaccines (which I agree with) are woefully horrible in their treatment and derision of those who don't want to vaccinate. They don't discuss, they preach, and that is wrong.

So I guess in the end I am willing to embrace science because it is willing to say it was wrong yesterday, when it finds new facts and new studies to support a different conclusion. Science doesn't hold onto an idea just because it likes it, but humans do.

Regards,

Doug

I....LOVE...YOU...

 

[Tanfodude]

False. You are apparently not familiar with how research grants work or how researchers at academic institutions get paid.

That is called profit? I thought it's called funding so you can do the work and research. If the approach to get funding is always for profit, then I can understand why other people are calling for gun control because all people with guns are bad.

 

[Libertarian01]

False. You are apparently not familiar with how research grants work or how researchers at academic institutions get paid.

Any proof of this being the primary motivator???

All kidding aside, there will ALWAYS be research into climate, weather patterns, soil erosion, and a plethora of other issues that funding will never run out. It's like this idea that scientists are hiding the cure for cancer because if they cure it they will be out of a job. REALLY??? There are no more diseases to cure when cancer is gone? It's the only disease left that gets funding?

The same goes for climate studies. There will always be someone, somewhere, wanting to know how much soot is going to run into the river to determine how often dredging will be needed. Or where the water table will possibly be in 20 years for farmers, ranchers, and city utilities.

I'm sure there are some scientists somewhere, an anecdotal number, that try to hype up to push for more funding, but the majority are probably just really dedicated geeks at whatever it is they study.

Even IF I were to concede your point, the coal, oil and gas industry have a far greater financial interest in maintaining the status quo than do scientists chasing research funding.

And please don't misunderstand me. I am NOT presuming the global warming alarmists are 100% correct, but what if, just what if, they're 50% correct? Or 40%? Or even 20%? Wouldn't it be concerning if we were affecting 20% of the fast climate change? Isn't it worth having an open discussion on this and looking at ways to mitigate possible damage?

This goes to the bigger damn issue of us v/s them!!! All lefties are socialist, arrogant A**h***s trying to control everyone. And all conservatives are narrow-minded, bible thumping inbreeds that barely completed high school. We have come to a social point where we don't have a discussion, we argue. We don't have a dialogue, we talk past one another. We live in our own little bubbles of people who think just like us and everyone else is full of crap. If we're going to solve any problems we need to be open to confronting ideas that we may not like, and be willing to be wrong from time to time. The social justice warriors need this concept pounded into them, as do some on the right as well.

Alas, we may never achieve the dialogues we need to solve the problems confronting us all.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Dean C.]

I personally enjoy Tyson he is a fantastic Astrophysicist, but he is an ASTROPHYSICIST that is his area of expertise. I would talk to him about white dwarf collapse and expansion but not climate change or evolution as they are not his area of expertise, granted he can explain the big bang and dark matter.

He is using his national platform to bring attention to topics most scientists can not bring attention to due to his fame much like Bill Nye the Science guy, except neither of them have degrees in what they like to talk about 90% of the time. Hell Bill Nye does not even have a Ph.D so he cannot even call himself a subject matter expert on any topic. Having a Ph.D does not mean you know everything about anything it means you are a subject matter expert on a particular specialized topic.

 

[oldpink]

NDT is more politician than scientist.
If he wants to pontificate from on high and sneer at anyone who dares to see things differently, who believes that true science and politics do not mix, he can do it to an empty room, as far as I'm concerned.
Arrogant blowhard

 

[Denny347]

Any proof of this being the primary motivator???

All kidding aside, there will ALWAYS be research into climate, weather patterns, soil erosion, and a plethora of other issues that funding will never run out. It's like this idea that scientists are hiding the cure for cancer because if they cure it they will be out of a job. REALLY??? There are no more diseases to cure when cancer is gone? It's the only disease left that gets funding?

The same goes for climate studies. There will always be someone, somewhere, wanting to know how much soot is going to run into the river to determine how often dredging will be needed. Or where the water table will possibly be in 20 years for farmers, ranchers, and city utilities.

I'm sure there are some scientists somewhere, an anecdotal number, that try to hype up to push for more funding, but the majority are probably just really dedicated geeks at whatever it is they study.

Even IF I were to concede your point, the coal, oil and gas industry have a far greater financial interest in maintaining the status quo than do scientists chasing research funding.

And please don't misunderstand me. I am NOT presuming the global warming alarmists are 100% correct, but what if, just what if, they're 50% correct? Or 40%? Or even 20%? Wouldn't it be concerning if we were affecting 20% of the fast climate change? Isn't it worth having an open discussion on this and looking at ways to mitigate possible damage?

This goes to the bigger damn issue of us v/s them!!! All lefties are socialist, arrogant A**h***s trying to control everyone. And all conservatives are narrow-minded, bible thumping inbreeds that barely completed high school. We have come to a social point where we don't have a discussion, we argue. We don't have a dialogue, we talk past one another. We live in our own little bubbles of people who think just like us and everyone else is full of crap. If we're going to solve any problems we need to be open to confronting ideas that we may not like, and be willing to be wrong from time to time. The social justice warriors need this concept pounded into them, as do some on the right as well.

Alas, we may never achieve the dialogues we need to solve the problems confronting us all.

Regards,

Doug

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Anyone (well...a few of us anyway) that lived through the 70's probably has developed a healthy skepticism when it comes to the dire warnings of climatologists...and scientists of any sort claiming we're about to die.

I'm old enough to remember this farce ^^^^. The citizens bought their line of bull hook, line, and sinker. It's not that we can't have dialogues. We are bombarded with studies and findings that are going to kill us. And like the climate change hoax, back in the 70's scientists reached consensus then as well...and we believed them and their dialogue.

Somewhere along the way, "they" figured out they can use hype and hysteria caused by scientific findings and studies to control people and affect politics and change peoples' lifestyles according to their visions and moralities.

That brings us to the science that had us afraid to go grocery shopping because eggs, coffee, margerine, bacon, popcorn oil, and on and on were going to kill us. Only, later to find out...well, maybe not.

Then we were all going to die from the ozone hole. So, we had to quit using styrofoam and we had to spend thousands of dollars to replace HVAC systems because freon was going to kill us.

Ice ages and ozones holes all faded from the public's view when they either never came to fruition or we'd all already sacrificed at the alter of science. And they had to come up with something else to encumber us, to derail (what they considered) our glutinous, western lifestyles and enter global warming.

We believed them again. We had dialogues. Remember that time NBC dimmed their studio lights to show support for reducing carbon footprints? We had movies out to brain wash our kids in schools. The culture jumped on global warming like a duck on a June bug. We had dialogue...we were awash with it. We ended production of incandescent light bulbs, we whittled out grid capacity to barely adequate by forcing coal plants to shut down, we've flushed billions of dollars down the toilet propping up "renewable energy" manufacturers. Then, the warming stopped. Then, we found out the data was faked.

I'd like to believe people would be starting to learn to be skeptical. But they're not...at least not as many as there should be. Everytime a study comes out and it exclaims "we have to do something, before it's too late!", we'll have plenty of people ready to buy it and jump through whatever hoops the scientists say we have to to stop the impending doom.

 

[jamil]

he and bill Nye the Science guy are both political shills. Where's Don Herbert when we need him.

They are science populists. Given their public rhetoric, especially deGrasse Tyson's latest video, their self imposed duty appears to get people to support public policies of elitists because they're so much better fit to tell us how we should live.

I have to agree with this.

I thought of you when I wrote it. Suspicion and/or skepticism is one thing. Belief should require a standard much higher.

On this topic especially, belief that necessitates life changing policies, should require the highest of standards. Instead they're killing off whole industries when there is plenty of cause for skepticism.

 

[eldirector]

It is clear to me, that government, especially Federal Government, picks the winners and losers in Academic Research. To the tune of $40 BILLION a few years ago. I am sure there is still "pure science" being done as well. Wholely independent research, peer reviewed, that stands on its own.

But, I worked in academia, and still am close to it. If one can't study what they want, they study what they can fund. It is pretty simple, really. The professor I worked under was studying inter-tidal mollusks. Not much of those in the Midwest. He approached the DNR about applying the tools he developed to Indiana Hardwoords. Guess who bought the lab's equipment and payed my stipend for the next 2 years? I learned a bunch about trees.....

Studying climate, alternative energy, drugs, and robotics is pretty lucrative right now.

 

[jamil]

A perfect example of someone who has stopped thinking vs. an inquisitive mind.

Science is not perfect, as humans are not perfect. But if we are going to advance as a species, it ain't going to be from the efforts of the doomsday cult that's greatest mission is to get me up early on Sunday to overdress and apologize for being human.

Two things. First, "advancing as a species" is collectivist bull****. Advancements of the species comes organically as individuals, through free enterprise, make discoveries that change society. Often, advancement brings new challenges of its own. I'd rather governments have policies to foster free market advancements and stay the hell out of it other than that.

Second, it sounds like you're using a lot more anti-religious venom than is necessary. I would state it this way. If someone wants their faith to guide their own lives, fine. Godspeed. But don't impose your faith-based beliefs on everyone else. And, especially if you're in a position of authority, it's fine to use your faith to guide your personal conduct, but it is a moral crime against the individuals who don't share your beliefs to use your position to impose your faith on them. Engaging in wars and spending the lives of soldiers on a religious whim, for example, is immoral. This is why governments should be secular.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Science, or its representatives, do not suggest/demand that people who disagree with their doctrine be imprisoned. I know Christianity used to do that, but they've kind of got over it. Scientists do not try to shut down discussion or debate with "the science is settled", shut up. Scientists do not use the argument that 97%* of us are in consensus, don't you want to be one of the cool kids?

The scientists may be in it for truth, or they may be in it for a political agenda. The elites are the ones looking to profit explicitly, or at least knock our freedom down a notch or two, so they recruit the scientists. Follow the money; I bet some of those elites have big investments in energy, so they win either way.

When I grew up, we were putting men on the moon, and bringing them back. There were amazing new technologies. Most people placed "faith" in science; it wasn't well understood by most, but it was putting out results that we couldn't argue with. It seems the scientists got to feeling like they could put anything over on a gullible public, and it upset them greatly that we started questioning them. They'd made the mistake of inventing the Internet.

As I understand the models they use, they're very compromised, and leave out a lot of variables. Consequently, it's no surprise that reality falls very near or outside the lowest error band. The data have been cooked, many of the ground-based measuring stations have been decommissioned, or had urban heat islands grow up around them. Worst of all, the peer review process has become an inquisition. The "peers" in charge of the publishing are AGW cultists almost exclusively, and papers that don't toe the political line have a very low expectation of being published.

This 97% figure has been demonstrated false. I would provide a link to the analysis, but I'm a compulsive non-collector of links. I should overcome that.

 

[ATM]

...I thought of you when I wrote it. Suspicion and/or skepticism is one thing. Belief should require a standard much higher.

On this topic especially, belief that necessitates life changing policies, should require the highest of standards. Instead they're killing off whole industries when there is plenty of cause for skepticism.

Even on other topics, beliefs that necessitated life changing policies, should have required the highest of standards. Instead they killed off certain liberties and whole families declaring a sequence of perpetual wars when there was plenty of cause for skepticism.

We should always remain skeptical of our beliefs, there is never a point they should become immune from examination or scrutiny, is there?

 

[rhino]

That is called profit? I thought it's called funding so you can do the work and research. If the approach to get funding is always for profit, then I can understand why other people are calling for gun control because all people with guns are bad.

Dude, they get a percentage of the grant for their very own. It doesn't just pay for the expenses related the research. The bigger the grant, the more they make personally. It's definitely enough motive for unethical people to keep committing fraud.