End the Politicization of Science

[Old Rocks]

Poor Rocks. After seeing a petition asking scientists to pledge to cut out politicization in science and to cut out partisanship in science, Rocks does exactly the opposite.

Rocks is obviously, an enemy of science.

Well Si, I did sign the petition. For science should have much more say in policy. As far as the posts went, I felt it neccessary to point out that the people most avidly trying to avoid using science in formulating policy are exactly those people you and the other Conservatives support.

 

[Old Rocks]

....

If you believe that the disregard of science is a threat to the future security of the United States and the international community, then please sign our petition below to show your support!

By signing the petition below you also pledge to spend five minutes talking about this issue with a friend or a stranger. Only through factual, non-partisan dialogue, can we fight against the politicization of science, and create a more informed world!

....

And the petition:

End the War on Science

Greetings,

We, the undersigned, believe public policy decisions are best made under the guidance of scientific inquiry and factual reason, not politics.

We petition the international community to end the politicization of science, by taking the following actions:

• Declare that good policy comes from informed decisions based on facts.
• Support scientists and engineers running for public office.
• Bring serious scientists together to solve the most challenging issues through non-partisan technical analysis.
• Stop exploiting differences in public opinion on science-based issues by playing partisan politics and relying on anti-science views.
• Pledge to bring an end to invoking misrepresented expertise to justify a course of action.
• Minimize interaction with advocacy groups that increasingly rely on anti-science experts to justify their issue stance.

To further show our passion for this cause, we pledge to spend five minutes today discussing this issue with a friend or a stranger. It is our belief that it is only through factual, non-partisan dialogue, can we fight against the politicization of science, and create a more informed world!

[Your name]
​

[Emphasis added]

FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS

What a damn good idea.

If the Federation of American Scientists wants to get politics out of science, they're going to have to figure out how to conduct science WITHOUT also taking government money for their research.

The GOLDEN RULE is no less in effect in scirntific reasearch than in any other field.

And since the government gives SO DAMNED MUCH MONEY to fund research, getting politics out of it is freaking IMPOSSIBLE.

Editec, without government funding in science, the machine and the internet by which we are communicating would not be here. Yes, govenment funding does skew what research gets the most funding. However, that is balanced by the fact that a lot of government research that is done is blue sky type research that would never get done by private enterprise because there is at present no known use for the subject of the research.

 

[Old Rocks]

Odd to see someone that denys the findings of science pushing this agenda. After all, it is what we were preaching from 2001 to 2009 when science was being suppressed by that administration in this nation, because they did not like the results.

Poor Rocks. Still can't grasp the petition, nor the basics of the logic of scientific discovery.

Or, reading comprehension, for that matter.

Really? Well, I have enough reading comprehension that I can grasp when the whole of the scientific community worldwide is stating that there is a clear and present danger in the continued increase in manmade GHGs that some kind of policy should result from that. Something other than fallacious inquires into the 'logic' of believing scientists.

 

[Si modo]

Odd to see someone that denys the findings of science pushing this agenda. After all, it is what we were preaching from 2001 to 2009 when science was being suppressed by that administration in this nation, because they did not like the results.

Poor Rocks. Still can't grasp the petition, nor the basics of the logic of scientific discovery.

Or, reading comprehension, for that matter.

Really? Well, I have enough reading comprehension that I can grasp when the whole of the scientific community worldwide is stating that there is a clear and present danger in the continued increase in manmade GHGs that some kind of policy should result from that. Something other than fallacious inquires into the 'logic' of believing scientists.

I don't play with your incessant strawmen.

Read the petition, understand the logic of scientific discovery, or stop soiling science with your partisanship and lack of comprehension of the logic of scientific discovery.

Or, just keep doing exactly what the petition hopes will stop. I find it incredibly ironic that that is exactly what you did in this thread.

 

[Old Rocks]

Damn. I cannot neg rep you today, Si. Sorry to slight you in that manner, but will try to keep the exchanges of neg reps going in the future.

And it is still strange to see you pushing this agenda considering the political stance you take on global warming.

 

[Si modo]

Damn. I cannot neg rep you today, Si. Sorry to slight you in that manner, but will try to keep the exchanges of neg reps going in the future.

And it is still strange to see you pushing this agenda considering the political stance you take on global warming.

This should be interesting: What position is it that you think I take on global warming?

 

[Old Rocks]

Poor Rocks. Still can't grasp the petition, nor the basics of the logic of scientific discovery.

Or, reading comprehension, for that matter.

Really? Well, I have enough reading comprehension that I can grasp when the whole of the scientific community worldwide is stating that there is a clear and present danger in the continued increase in manmade GHGs that some kind of policy should result from that. Something other than fallacious inquires into the 'logic' of believing scientists.

I don't play with your incessant strawmen.

Read the petition, understand the logic of scientific discovery, or stop soiling science with your partisanship and lack of comprehension of the logic of scientific discovery.

Or, just keep doing exactly what the petition hopes will stop. I find it incredibly ironic that that is exactly what you did in this thread.

So you don't like getting called on your politization of science. Too bad. For you are one of those primarily involved in doing exactly that from what I have seen on this board.

And the worst of it did stop when the last admin left office. Of course, we still have the people like Inhofe to deal with. And the other Repubs that are totally ignoring science in creating the policies of this nation.

When there is one group that has for years denigrated and denied science, and then a member of that group starts lamenting the lack of science in policy, one has to wonder about the intents of that person.

 

[Si modo]

Really? Well, I have enough reading comprehension that I can grasp when the whole of the scientific community worldwide is stating that there is a clear and present danger in the continued increase in manmade GHGs that some kind of policy should result from that. Something other than fallacious inquires into the 'logic' of believing scientists.

I don't play with your incessant strawmen.

Read the petition, understand the logic of scientific discovery, or stop soiling science with your partisanship and lack of comprehension of the logic of scientific discovery.

Or, just keep doing exactly what the petition hopes will stop. I find it incredibly ironic that that is exactly what you did in this thread.

So you don't like getting called on your politization of science. Too bad. For you are one of those primarily involved in doing exactly that from what I have seen on this board.

And the worst of it did stop when the last admin left office. Of course, we still have the people like Inhofe to deal with. And the other Repubs that are totally ignoring science in creating the policies of this nation.

When there is one group that has for years denigrated and denied science, and then a member of that group starts lamenting the lack of science in policy, one has to wonder about the intents of that person.

Rocks, what is it that you think my position is on global warming?

As you keep bringing up my position - a position with which you apparently disagree - you surely can articulate it.

Or, is this yet another question of mine, like 'what are the deniers denying?', that you will consistently dodge?

 

[Old Rocks]

Pretty damned obvious, Si. The physics simply state that adding GHGs to the atmosphere will result in a warmer atmosphere and earth. The obvious thing to do is to reduce and eventually eliminate adding GHGs. It cannot be done overnight without total disruption of society, however, it can be done incrementally. Using all resources available, including nuclear.

And prepare to adapt to the changes already in the pipe, for what the level of GHGs are today will continue to heat the earth for at least another 30 years, perhaps even 50.

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't play with your incessant strawmen.

Read the petition, understand the logic of scientific discovery, or stop soiling science with your partisanship and lack of comprehension of the logic of scientific discovery.

Or, just keep doing exactly what the petition hopes will stop. I find it incredibly ironic that that is exactly what you did in this thread.

So you don't like getting called on your politization of science. Too bad. For you are one of those primarily involved in doing exactly that from what I have seen on this board.

And the worst of it did stop when the last admin left office. Of course, we still have the people like Inhofe to deal with. And the other Repubs that are totally ignoring science in creating the policies of this nation.

When there is one group that has for years denigrated and denied science, and then a member of that group starts lamenting the lack of science in policy, one has to wonder about the intents of that person.

Rocks, what is it that you think my position is on global warming?

You have consistantly stated that the logic of the articles I have posted from peer reviewed sources is lacking. You cloth that in attacking my logic, yet what I have done is simply post what the scientists involved in the study of climate are stateing.

From that, you seem to be denying the existance of, or that we have anything to do with the existance of a warming.

As you keep bringing up my position - a position with which you apparently disagree - you surely can articulate it.

Denial

Or, is this yet another question of mine, like 'what are the deniers denying?', that you will consistently dodge?

Ranges from total denial that there is any warming at all, to denial that GHGs have anything to do with the warming. Or that we are putting enough GHGs into the atmosphere to create a warming.

 

[Si modo]

So you don't like getting called on your politization of science. Too bad. For you are one of those primarily involved in doing exactly that from what I have seen on this board.

And the worst of it did stop when the last admin left office. Of course, we still have the people like Inhofe to deal with. And the other Repubs that are totally ignoring science in creating the policies of this nation.

When there is one group that has for years denigrated and denied science, and then a member of that group starts lamenting the lack of science in policy, one has to wonder about the intents of that person.

Rocks, what is it that you think my position is on global warming?

You have consistantly stated that the logic of the articles I have posted from peer reviewed sources is lacking. You cloth that in attacking my logic, yet what I have done is simply post what the scientists involved in the study of climate are stateing.

From that, you seem to be denying the existance of, or that we have anything to do with the existance of a warming.

As you keep bringing up my position - a position with which you apparently disagree - you surely can articulate it.

Denial

Or, is this yet another question of mine, like 'what are the deniers denying?', that you will consistently dodge?

Ranges from total denial that there is any warming at all, to denial that GHGs have anything to do with the warming. Or that we are putting enough GHGs into the atmosphere to create a warming.

Well, as I said, you clearly have serious reading comprehension skills.

Wrong.

 

[Si modo]

Pretty damned obvious, Si. The physics simply state that adding GHGs to the atmosphere will result in a warmer atmosphere and earth. The obvious thing to do is to reduce and eventually eliminate adding GHGs. It cannot be done overnight without total disruption of society, however, it can be done incrementally. Using all resources available, including nuclear.

And prepare to adapt to the changes already in the pipe, for what the level of GHGs are today will continue to heat the earth for at least another 30 years, perhaps even 50.

Strawman.

Now, what exactly is it that my position is?

Hint: Review my posts in this matter. I have explicitely said it every time that you have lied about it. That makes for several times that I have explicitely posted it.


A simple search for you and let's see how that reading comprehension goes for you.

 

[Samson]

Rocks, what is it that you think my position is on global warming?

You have consistantly stated that the logic of the articles I have posted from peer reviewed sources is lacking. You cloth that in attacking my logic, yet what I have done is simply post what the scientists involved in the study of climate are stateing.

From that, you seem to be denying the existance of, or that we have anything to do with the existance of a warming.

As you keep bringing up my position - a position with which you apparently disagree - you surely can articulate it.

Denial

Or, is this yet another question of mine, like 'what are the deniers denying?', that you will consistently dodge?

Ranges from total denial that there is any warming at all, to denial that GHGs have anything to do with the warming. Or that we are putting enough GHGs into the atmosphere to create a warming.

Wrong.

You're making it too complicated for him to comprehend.

 

[Si modo]

Ranges from total denial that there is any warming at all, to denial that GHGs have anything to do with the warming. Or that we are putting enough GHGs into the atmosphere to create a warming.

Wrong.

You're making it too complicated for him to comprehend.

Apparently.

 

[Si modo]

....

Science , History and all higher education are hated by the right.

Sweet irony.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So you don't like getting called on your politization of science. Too bad. For you are one of those primarily involved in doing exactly that from what I have seen on this board.

And the worst of it did stop when the last admin left office. Of course, we still have the people like Inhofe to deal with. And the other Repubs that are totally ignoring science in creating the policies of this nation.

When there is one group that has for years denigrated and denied science, and then a member of that group starts lamenting the lack of science in policy, one has to wonder about the intents of that person.

Rocks, what is it that you think my position is on global warming?

You have consistantly stated that the logic of the articles I have posted from peer reviewed sources is lacking. You cloth that in attacking my logic, yet what I have done is simply post what the scientists involved in the study of climate are stateing.

From that, you seem to be denying the existance of, or that we have anything to do with the existance of a warming.

As you keep bringing up my position - a position with which you apparently disagree - you surely can articulate it.

Denial

Or, is this yet another question of mine, like 'what are the deniers denying?', that you will consistently dodge?

Ranges from total denial that there is any warming at all, to denial that GHGs have anything to do with the warming. Or that we are putting enough GHGs into the atmosphere to create a warming.

Suggestion Rocks, don't get into a pissing contest with a skunk. Si modo is dishonest and despicable.

 

[Si modo]

Rocks, what is it that you think my position is on global warming?

You have consistantly stated that the logic of the articles I have posted from peer reviewed sources is lacking. You cloth that in attacking my logic, yet what I have done is simply post what the scientists involved in the study of climate are stateing.

From that, you seem to be denying the existance of, or that we have anything to do with the existance of a warming.

As you keep bringing up my position - a position with which you apparently disagree - you surely can articulate it.

Denial

Or, is this yet another question of mine, like 'what are the deniers denying?', that you will consistently dodge?

Ranges from total denial that there is any warming at all, to denial that GHGs have anything to do with the warming. Or that we are putting enough GHGs into the atmosphere to create a warming.

Suggestion Rocks, don't get into a pissing contest with a skunk. Si modo is dishonest and despicable.

Well, that's not really all that helpful as it pertains to the topic.

I suppose the topic frightens too many.

 

[Immanuel]

The decision to send a man to the moon was really a political decision, a decision elucidated in a speech by President John F Kennedy. Was it a poor decision, to set and then accomplish this goal? I suspect that a non-partisan panel of scientists (back in the 1960's) would not have assigned such a high priority to the manned spaceflight program that culminated in a moon landing. They would have directed more funds into basic research.

That is basically what I am saying.

If the AFoS wants to end the politicization of science, they would risk losing much of their funding.

Personally, I agree with them, politics and science mix about as well as religion and politics but government funding of science goes a long way to scientific advancement. Government will sponsor research into areas that do not appear to be profitable in order to promote research into fields that may some day prove useful i.e. stem cell research.

Immie

This is not the point of the petition. The points of the petition are:

• Declare that good policy comes from informed decisions based on facts.
• Support scientists and engineers running for public office.
• Bring serious scientists together to solve the most challenging issues through non-partisan technical analysis.
• Stop exploiting differences in public opinion on science-based issues by playing partisan politics and relying on anti-science views.
• Pledge to bring an end to invoking misrepresented expertise to justify a course of action.
• Minimize interaction with advocacy groups that increasingly rely on anti-science experts to justify their issue stance.​

The politics of grants and the point of this petition are not the same thing. There may be similarities, but with intense grant review procedures in place by the scientific granting agencies, the grant awards are already scientifically informed.

I know and understand that, but the old saying, "You can't have your cake and eat it too" applies here.

If they want to continue to receive grants they are going to have to deal with the politicization of science.

Immie

 

[Si modo]

That is basically what I am saying.

If the AFoS wants to end the politicization of science, they would risk losing much of their funding.

Personally, I agree with them, politics and science mix about as well as religion and politics but government funding of science goes a long way to scientific advancement. Government will sponsor research into areas that do not appear to be profitable in order to promote research into fields that may some day prove useful i.e. stem cell research.

Immie

This is not the point of the petition. The points of the petition are:

• Declare that good policy comes from informed decisions based on facts.
• Support scientists and engineers running for public office.
• Bring serious scientists together to solve the most challenging issues through non-partisan technical analysis.
• Stop exploiting differences in public opinion on science-based issues by playing partisan politics and relying on anti-science views.
• Pledge to bring an end to invoking misrepresented expertise to justify a course of action.
• Minimize interaction with advocacy groups that increasingly rely on anti-science experts to justify their issue stance.​

The politics of grants and the point of this petition are not the same thing. There may be similarities, but with intense grant review procedures in place by the scientific granting agencies, the grant awards are already scientifically informed.

I know and understand that, but the old saying, "You can't have your cake and eat it too" applies here.

If they want to continue to receive grants they are going to have to deal with the politicization of science.

Immie

Actually, one can have cake and eat it too, of that's the analogy you wish to use.

The grant approval process is one thing (and the monies allocated for them), policy based on science is another. The latter is the intent of the petition.

 

[Immanuel]

This is not the point of the petition. The points of the petition are:

• Declare that good policy comes from informed decisions based on facts.
• Support scientists and engineers running for public office.
• Bring serious scientists together to solve the most challenging issues through non-partisan technical analysis.
• Stop exploiting differences in public opinion on science-based issues by playing partisan politics and relying on anti-science views.
• Pledge to bring an end to invoking misrepresented expertise to justify a course of action.
• Minimize interaction with advocacy groups that increasingly rely on anti-science experts to justify their issue stance.​

The politics of grants and the point of this petition are not the same thing. There may be similarities, but with intense grant review procedures in place by the scientific granting agencies, the grant awards are already scientifically informed.

I know and understand that, but the old saying, "You can't have your cake and eat it too" applies here.

If they want to continue to receive grants they are going to have to deal with the politicization of science.

Immie

Actually, one can have cake and eat it too, of that's the analogy you wish to use.

The grant approval process is one thing (and the monies allocated for them), policy based on science is another. The latter is the intent of the petition.

I have to disagree with you on the basis of my first post. Politicians are not going to fund anything they do not expect to get a return on. They sure as hell are not going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts or for the goodness of mankind.

Immie