Which one do you believe?

Message boards : Politics : Which one do you believe?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Umpteenth Snark

Send message
Joined: 2 Oct 13
Posts: 472
Credit: 175,597
RAC: 0
Message 1650425 - Posted: 7 Mar 2015, 20:26:15 UTC

There are findings of fact and science, and there are greedy industries and their henchmen:

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

By Justin Gillis and John Schwartz
International New York Times
Feb 21, 2015

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=2&referrer=
ID: 1650425 · Report as offensive
Nick: ID 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 11856
Credit: 32,025,634
RAC: 1,861
United Kingdom
Message 1650480 - Posted: 8 Mar 2015, 0:09:51 UTC

Wouldn't this be better in the Politics forum in one of the climate threads.
ID: 1650480 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 22696
Credit: 37,537,608
RAC: 30,807
United States
Message 1650543 - Posted: 8 Mar 2015, 5:40:19 UTC - in response to Message 1650480.  

Wouldn't this be better in the Politics forum in one of the climate threads.

+1
ID: 1650543 · Report as offensive
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 2958
Credit: 1,448,164
RAC: 2,073
United States
Message 1650552 - Posted: 8 Mar 2015, 6:13:54 UTC - in response to Message 1650480.  

Wouldn't this be better in the Politics forum in one of the climate threads.

+2
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1650552 · Report as offensive
Umpteenth Snark

Send message
Joined: 2 Oct 13
Posts: 472
Credit: 175,597
RAC: 0
Message 1650577 - Posted: 8 Mar 2015, 9:56:51 UTC - in response to Message 1650480.  

Wouldn't this be better in the Politics forum in one of the climate threads.

Why? This is about proper science and improper abuse of "science". What could be a more scientific discussion topic? You never heard of philosophy of science, sociology of science?

Now, I was hoping for discussion on the topic itself. Personally, I disapprove corruption in science as well as everywhere else.
ID: 1650577 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio Project Donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 6682
Credit: 1,968,517
RAC: 417
Italy
Message 1650620 - Posted: 8 Mar 2015, 12:57:50 UTC
Last modified: 8 Mar 2015, 12:58:17 UTC

There is an editorial in "Nature" magazine, titled "Gone fishing", which discusses this case. I cannot link it, I should have to pay, but go and read it if you can, I do not have a subscription to "Nature" magazine, I am only a registered user, but I can read its editorials and some review articles every week.
Tullio
ID: 1650620 · Report as offensive
Profile Chris S Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40477
Credit: 41,362,718
RAC: 419
United Kingdom
Message 1650625 - Posted: 8 Mar 2015, 13:27:24 UTC

Wouldn't this be better in the Politics forum in one of the climate threads.


+3
ID: 1650625 · Report as offensive
Umpteenth Snark

Send message
Joined: 2 Oct 13
Posts: 472
Credit: 175,597
RAC: 0
Message 1650641 - Posted: 8 Mar 2015, 14:27:54 UTC - in response to Message 1650620.  
Last modified: 8 Mar 2015, 14:58:26 UTC

There is an editorial in "Nature" magazine, - -

Grazie, Tullio. Mi sembra, che la "Nature" accomuna due cose. Vorrei che una discussione sulla scienza e l'etica della scienza. Questa è sicuramente una questione di forum scienza.

Che un politico americano ha fatto, è irrilevante a tale riguardo e adatto per la politica forum. Io non sto cercando una tale materia.
ID: 1650641 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio Project Donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 6682
Credit: 1,968,517
RAC: 417
Italy
Message 1650647 - Posted: 8 Mar 2015, 14:55:44 UTC - in response to Message 1650641.  

I agree with you. A subject discussed in "Nature", which is not a political magazine but the best science magazine in the world, can be discussed here. The subject goes beyond the case, and implies the social responsibility of scientists also in cases like nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. We have nuclear warheads stored in Italy and nobody cares about them, while people protest against the boring of a railway tunnel in Val di Susa . This is absurd.
Tullio
ID: 1650647 · Report as offensive
Umpteenth Snark

Send message
Joined: 2 Oct 13
Posts: 472
Credit: 175,597
RAC: 0
Message 1651320 - Posted: 10 Mar 2015, 8:44:14 UTC

While waiting for developments on the subject matter and noting that science obviously isn't a majority vote question, one may well consider background information:

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

For those scientifically challenged: It is generally uncommon in scientific thinking to state general, unconditional claims, and therefore "very likely due to human activities" is about the strongest term possible. This is part of the procedure. All apples noted falling from trees have so far headed towards the ground, and we have an excellent explanation for this, too. Still, it is not excluded that someday one apple may do otherwise, and in such a case we would calmly reconsider our view on gravity.

Absolute, eternal, immutable "truths" belong to other, delusional spheres.
ID: 1651320 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 22696
Credit: 37,537,608
RAC: 30,807
United States
Message 1651374 - Posted: 10 Mar 2015, 13:30:03 UTC - in response to Message 1651320.  

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

And that widely repeated 97% of scientists number ....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/03/07/pseudo-science-and-the-age-of-irrationalism/
84% percent of scientists think that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels but only 49% of the public believes it.

If they misrepresent about a small detail like that, what else are they misrepresenting?
ID: 1651374 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3366
Credit: 1,341,063
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1651410 - Posted: 10 Mar 2015, 15:37:11 UTC - in response to Message 1651374.  

84% percent of scientists think that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels but only 49% of the public believes it.


Of course burning releases heat. But the issue here was the CO-2 effect of Human activity.

There has been plenty of back and forth on whether human activity which is a small percent of an even smaller percent of the atmospheric gasses matters to any degree at all.

The fear I have is the ignorant , misguided and costly efforts to try to change something that we can't and the way we try to change it doesn't matter anyway to begin with.

Less people would have less impact on the PLanet. There won't be less people.
ID: 1651410 · Report as offensive
Umpteenth Snark

Send message
Joined: 2 Oct 13
Posts: 472
Credit: 175,597
RAC: 0
Message 1651621 - Posted: 11 Mar 2015, 10:34:35 UTC - in response to Message 1651374.  

If they misrepresent about a small detail like that, what else are they misrepresenting?

Such Mike Collins who refers to Wikipedia as if it was an acceptable source, is certainly not trustworthy.

For those source critically challenged: When one does not trust any one anonymous speaker with no responsibility, why would one thousand or million suchlike be at least any better?

The Scientific American has a recent article about the disease of bias:

Why People "Fly from Facts"
Research shows the appeal of untestable beliefs, and how it leads to a polarized society
March 3, 2015
By Troy Campbell and Justin Friesen

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-fly-from-facts/
ID: 1651621 · Report as offensive
Profile The Simonator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Nov 04
Posts: 5692
Credit: 3,417,437
RAC: 2
United Kingdom
Message 1651668 - Posted: 11 Mar 2015, 14:06:38 UTC - in response to Message 1650620.  

There is an editorial in "Nature" magazine, titled "Gone fishing", which discusses this case. I cannot link it, I should have to pay, but go and read it if you can, I do not have a subscription to "Nature" magazine, I am only a registered user, but I can read its editorials and some review articles every week.
Tullio

Here's said article in picture form for anyone interested.

Image
Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.
ID: 1651668 · Report as offensive
Profile Clyde Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 12828
Credit: 44,915,798
RAC: 3,176
United States
Message 1651669 - Posted: 11 Mar 2015, 14:15:01 UTC
Last modified: 11 Mar 2015, 14:15:12 UTC

Which one do you believe?

Be cynical of both.

BOTH side have their own, many times, unscientific agenda:

Money, Career, Group Adherence, etc.

Science and Scientists, have the same human failing, as any another group or belief.

Believing differently, is silly.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--- George Santayana
ID: 1651669 · Report as offensive

Message boards : Politics : Which one do you believe?


 
©2018 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.