Pretty sad how little interest in science

Doh! I have to spread some rep around before I can get back to you Baruch.
 
From the actions of recent administrations, the evidence is that Republican's do not like real science at all. And are quite willing to go against the Constitution to stifle real research that does not agree with their agenda or world view.

Science -- NCAC

INTRODUCTION
The impulse to stifle scientific speech is not a recent development. Government and religious officials have often sought to quash scientific findings that threaten their political message or value system. The censure (and imprisonment) of Galileo by the Catholic Church during the Inquisition for his theory that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe and, later, Stalin's brutal repression of scientific inquiry in the totalitarian Soviet Union, are but two examples of the long history of suppression of scientific thought. Even a democracy such as ours has experienced tension between the often competing aims of the scientific community and our political leaders, as evidenced, for example, by Nixon's frayed relationship with his science advisors and Reagan's bitter reaction to the scientific community's skeptical evaluation of his Strategic Defense Initiative.

Under the George W. Bush Administration, however, the federal government, motivated by a desire to sustain a specific political agenda, suppressed and/or distorted scientific reports to a degree not previously seen in this country. This incursion on the scientific community impinged on a wide range of topics, including the environment, climate change, contraception and abstinence education, stem cell research, missile defense, energy sources and evolution. These acts raise serious First Amendment and free expression concerns and represent a general assault on the scientific process.

Though most of the censorious practices of the Bush Administration were terminated by President Obama, censorship of science, especially on the state and local level, is still with us. There are also other systematic ways in which scientific researsh is suppressed and distorted - especially by means of the strings attached to funding mechanisms - which remain unchenged no matter who takes the political leadership of the country.

For reports on specific acts of scientific censorship, see below. And to learn more how about this issue, check out NCAC's The Knowledge Project: Censorship & Science.
 
From the other side of the spectrum. ........





The spate of recent controversies about climate research has given fresh voice to a group of scientists who question the mainstream view that human activity is warming the planet to dangerous levels.

Very few scientists disagree that the earth's climate has warmed since 1850. But some have long argued that there are too many uncertainties about man's role in the warming, and that other factors, such as solar activity and the greenhouse effect of clouds, could account for a large part of the observed warming trend. Among this group are researchers who have criticized the limitations of past temperature records and mathematical models used to forecast future effects.

Such views are getting a fresh airing on the heels of two recent controversies dogging climate researchers. A United Nations group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has been heavily criticized for publishing an unsubstantiated claim that Himalayan glaciers would entirely melt away by 2035. A recent report also included several other claims later found to lack a scientific basis, including predictions of the impact of climate change on agriculture in Africa and the retreat of Amazonian rain forests, among others.

News of those discrepancies followed a scandal in Britain where the publication of hacked emails of climate scientists suggested they had declined to share their data with fellow researchers and tried to squelch dissenting views about climate change.

It's too soon to tell whether the critics' views will force the scientific community to revisit the prevailing view of man-made climate change. Many of their colleagues remain resolute in their stance that global warming is caused mainly by humankind. The IPCC in recent interviews has said its errors, while serious enough to make the organization re-examine its procedures, do not change the central point of its influential 2007 report, which concluded that evidence for the human role in global warming is "unequivocal."
"It's important to say that the scandals we've had don't change the fundamental point that global warming is man-made and we need to tackle it," says Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish academic and environmental writer. In his view, "the standard message—that we need to cut a lot of emissions right now or doom is upon us—is not correct." He advocates investments in green technology instead of cutting emissions.

The political fallout from the IPCC's mistakes was evident Tuesday when Texas authorities announced the state was taking legal action against the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. In its filing, the state argued that the information the EPA used to make its decision is based on data from the IPCC. Alfredo "Al" Armendariz, EPA regional administrator for Texas and other nearby states, said he expects the agency's efforts to withstand a court challenge. Virginia's attorney general Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II said Tuesday he has also asked the EPA to delay final consideration of that finding so "newly available information" can be reviewed, reported the Associated Press.

Among the most vocal of the cadre of scientists who have questioned some of the IPCC's recent work is John R. Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville and a former contributor to a big 2001 IPCC report. He, like several other of the critics, was repeatedly criticized in the hacked emails.

Dr. Christy spent years comparing temperature data from satellites with ground stations. He concluded that the reliance on a few well-known ground-based measuring stations may vastly overstate how much temperatures have risen. He suggests that surface temperatures are actually measuring an increase in human development—more and bigger cities, more asphalt, more air-conditioning—and not rising temperatures in the atmosphere. Most climate scientists, by contrast, ascribe rising temperatures largely to man's introduction of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Some dissenters have focused on the complex effect of clouds. Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a past contributor to an IPCC report, says that the role of clouds and water vapor—the main greenhouse agents in the atmosphere—is one of the least understood factors in climate science. It's a limitation that the IPCC acknowledges.

Prof. Lindzen says the key issue is "climate sensitivity"—how much will temperatures rise when carbon-dioxide levels double. He asserts that current climate models include a "positive feedback" effect whereby clouds and water vapor act to amplify CO2's greenhouse effect. In response to a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels, the IPCC has found climate sensitivity to be between 1.5 degrees and five degrees Fahrenheit. Prof. Lindzen says those figures, derived from models, overstate the case.

Prof. Lindzen recently published a study based on radiation measurements taken from satellites—not models—and concluded that climate sensitivity as a result of clouds and water vapor was more likely in the 0.3 degrees to 1.2 degrees range, much lower than the figure accepted by most climate researchers. "The observational analysis implies that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity," he concludes in a second, yet-to-be published paper on the same subject.

Dr. Willie Soon, a professor at Harvard University, believes that changing levels of solar radiation, especially the amount that hits the Arctic, are driving huge, slow changes in the earth's climate—much as they did in past centuries. The theory rests on the fact that the sun emits different amounts of energy at different times.

George Kukla, a retired professor at Columbia University, says even longer-term climate cycles explain the current warming trend. His work is based on the idea that ice ages and warmer interglacial periods are driven by periodic variations in earth's orbit around the sun, known as the Milankovich cycle after the scientist who studied them.


Climate-Research Controversies Create Opening for Critics - WSJ.com
 
Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said Tuesday they won't renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases.

The move comes as debate over climate change intensifies and concerns mount about the cost of capping greenhouse-gas emissions.

On a range of issues, from climate change to health care, skepticism is growing in Washington that Congress will pass any major legislation in a contentious election year in which Republicans are expected to gain seats. For companies, the shifting winds have reduced pressure to find common ground, leading them to pursue their own, sometimes conflicting interests.

Last week, the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Billy Tauzin, said he would step down as president of the industry's main lobby in Washington, amid criticism from some in the industry over the alliance he made last year with the White House to support health-care legislation.
BP, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar Pull Out of Climate Partnership - WSJ.com
 
to the op: post an interesting thread or two and see if it goes anywhere?

I have, and pretty much don't get much response. Most science or responses you get is some bozo trying to spread lies and misinformation about the science or trying to politicize it.
 
Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said Tuesday they won't renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases.

The move comes as debate over climate change intensifies and concerns mount about the cost of capping greenhouse-gas emissions.

On a range of issues, from climate change to health care, skepticism is growing in Washington that Congress will pass any major legislation in a contentious election year in which Republicans are expected to gain seats. For companies, the shifting winds have reduced pressure to find common ground, leading them to pursue their own, sometimes conflicting interests.

Last week, the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Billy Tauzin, said he would step down as president of the industry's main lobby in Washington, amid criticism from some in the industry over the alliance he made last year with the White House to support health-care legislation.
BP, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar Pull Out of Climate Partnership - WSJ.com
I may have to revise my estimate on the death of "Green" up to maybe under 3 years instead of 5.

This thing's burning up in the atmosphere faster than the shuttle with holes knocked in it's heat shield by "environmentally safe" foam.
 
From the actions of recent administrations, the evidence is that Republican's do not like real science at all. And are quite willing to go against the Constitution to stifle real research that does not agree with their agenda or world view.

Science -- NCAC

INTRODUCTION
The impulse to stifle scientific speech is not a recent development. Government and religious officials have often sought to quash scientific findings that threaten their political message or value system. The censure (and imprisonment) of Galileo by the Catholic Church during the Inquisition for his theory that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe and, later, Stalin's brutal repression of scientific inquiry in the totalitarian Soviet Union, are but two examples of the long history of suppression of scientific thought. Even a democracy such as ours has experienced tension between the often competing aims of the scientific community and our political leaders, as evidenced, for example, by Nixon's frayed relationship with his science advisors and Reagan's bitter reaction to the scientific community's skeptical evaluation of his Strategic Defense Initiative.

Under the George W. Bush Administration, however, the federal government, motivated by a desire to sustain a specific political agenda, suppressed and/or distorted scientific reports to a degree not previously seen in this country. This incursion on the scientific community impinged on a wide range of topics, including the environment, climate change, contraception and abstinence education, stem cell research, missile defense, energy sources and evolution. These acts raise serious First Amendment and free expression concerns and represent a general assault on the scientific process.

Though most of the censorious practices of the Bush Administration were terminated by President Obama, censorship of science, especially on the state and local level, is still with us.
There are also other systematic ways in which scientific researsh is suppressed and distorted - especially by means of the strings attached to funding mechanisms - which remain unchenged no matter who takes the political leadership of the country.

For reports on specific acts of scientific censorship, see below. And to learn more how about this issue, check out NCAC's The Knowledge Project: Censorship & Science.

This was reported in every science and engineering publication starting within 6 months of George Bush taking office during his first term and lasting until Obama. You can't really blame Republicans. They have ALWAYS been up front about their disdain of science. Even Popular Mechanics was complaining and they are hardly "radical".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From the actions of recent administrations, the evidence is that Republican's do not like real science at all. And are quite willing to go against the Constitution to stifle real research that does not agree with their agenda or world view.

Science -- NCAC

INTRODUCTION
The impulse to stifle scientific speech is not a recent development. Government and religious officials have often sought to quash scientific findings that threaten their political message or value system. The censure (and imprisonment) of Galileo by the Catholic Church during the Inquisition for his theory that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe and, later, Stalin's brutal repression of scientific inquiry in the totalitarian Soviet Union, are but two examples of the long history of suppression of scientific thought. Even a democracy such as ours has experienced tension between the often competing aims of the scientific community and our political leaders, as evidenced, for example, by Nixon's frayed relationship with his science advisors and Reagan's bitter reaction to the scientific community's skeptical evaluation of his Strategic Defense Initiative.

Under the George W. Bush Administration, however, the federal government, motivated by a desire to sustain a specific political agenda, suppressed and/or distorted scientific reports to a degree not previously seen in this country. This incursion on the scientific community impinged on a wide range of topics, including the environment, climate change, contraception and abstinence education, stem cell research, missile defense, energy sources and evolution. These acts raise serious First Amendment and free expression concerns and represent a general assault on the scientific process.

Though most of the censorious practices of the Bush Administration were terminated by President Obama, censorship of science, especially on the state and local level, is still with us.
There are also other systematic ways in which scientific researsh is suppressed and distorted - especially by means of the strings attached to funding mechanisms - which remain unchenged no matter who takes the political leadership of the country.

For reports on specific acts of scientific censorship, see below. And to learn more how about this issue, check out NCAC's The Knowledge Project: Censorship & Science.

This was reported in every science and engineering publication starting within 6 months of George Bush taking office during his first term and lasting until Obama. You can't really blame Republicans. They have ALWAYS been up front about their disdain of science. Even Popular Mechanics was complaining and they are hardly "radical".


NCAC is the National Coalition Against Censorship. As if anyone is for censorship, except those deep in political correctness. This is a self congratutory screed by a group currying favor amongst those who have a need to feel superior in this case superior to conservative Republicans. Interesting that President Bush first funded stem cell research, but placed limits on the source of the embryonic stem cells. It was limited to existing stem cell lines, and adult stem cell funding was not restricted and was supported by President Bush as a more viable means of research. It turns out that adult stem cells have been much more productive than embryonic. It's not a disdain of science that guided that decision, it was respect for human life. We know that given a chance, virtually every new process will be exploited, included human cloning.

There is an appearance that some here hope that some of the star qualities will rub off on themselves. I'm a conservative, live in a town and gown environment, know both liberals and conservatives. I don't see a lot of difference between the two in interest in the sciences. But I do note, for instance, a greater proportion of liberals oppose manned space flight than do conservatives. Mentioning new plans for the space program proposed by the administration to a scientist at IU, I found him entirely unfriendly to the subject. Seems he thought the money could be better spent on things right here on Earth. I do see a difference between the two in their willingness and propensity for ridicule and looking askance and disdain at those who don't share their prejudices. The above article is full of their own intrepretations of what they see, or hope to see, almost as if looking around for some new McCarthyism.
 
Last edited:
From the actions of recent administrations, the evidence is that Republican's do not like real science at all. And are quite willing to go against the Constitution to stifle real research that does not agree with their agenda or world view.

Science -- NCAC

INTRODUCTION
The impulse to stifle scientific speech is not a recent development. Government and religious officials have often sought to quash scientific findings that threaten their political message or value system. The censure (and imprisonment) of Galileo by the Catholic Church during the Inquisition for his theory that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe and, later, Stalin's brutal repression of scientific inquiry in the totalitarian Soviet Union, are but two examples of the long history of suppression of scientific thought. Even a democracy such as ours has experienced tension between the often competing aims of the scientific community and our political leaders, as evidenced, for example, by Nixon's frayed relationship with his science advisors and Reagan's bitter reaction to the scientific community's skeptical evaluation of his Strategic Defense Initiative.

Under the George W. Bush Administration, however, the federal government, motivated by a desire to sustain a specific political agenda, suppressed and/or distorted scientific reports to a degree not previously seen in this country. This incursion on the scientific community impinged on a wide range of topics, including the environment, climate change, contraception and abstinence education, stem cell research, missile defense, energy sources and evolution. These acts raise serious First Amendment and free expression concerns and represent a general assault on the scientific process.

Though most of the censorious practices of the Bush Administration were terminated by President Obama, censorship of science, especially on the state and local level, is still with us.
There are also other systematic ways in which scientific researsh is suppressed and distorted - especially by means of the strings attached to funding mechanisms - which remain unchenged no matter who takes the political leadership of the country.

For reports on specific acts of scientific censorship, see below. And to learn more how about this issue, check out NCAC's The Knowledge Project: Censorship & Science.

This was reported in every science and engineering publication starting within 6 months of George Bush taking office during his first term and lasting until Obama. You can't really blame Republicans. They have ALWAYS been up front about their disdain of science. Even Popular Mechanics was complaining and they are hardly "radical".


NCAC is the National Coalition Against Censorship. As if anyone is for censorship, except those deep in political correctness. This is a self congratutory screed by a group currying favor amongst those who have a need to feel superior in this case superior to conservative Republicans. Interesting that President Bush first funded stem cell research, but placed limits on the source of the embryonic stem cells. It was limited to existing stem cell lines, and adult stem cell funding was not restricted and was supported by President Bush as a more viable means of research. It turns out that adult stem cells have been much more productive than embryonic. It's not a disdain of science that guided that decision, it was respect for human life. We know that given a chance, virtually every new process will be exploited, included human cloning.

There is an appearance that some here hope that some of the star qualities will rub off on themselves. I'm a conservative, live in a town and gown environment, know both liberals and conservatives. I don't see a lot of difference between the two in interest in the sciences. But I do note, for instance, a greater proportion of liberals oppose manned space flight than do conservatives. Mentioning new plans for the space program proposed by the administration to a scientist at IU, I found him entirely unfriendly to the subject. Seems he thought the money could be better spent on things right here on Earth. I do see a difference between the two in their willingness and propensity for ridicule and looking askance and disdain at those who don't share their prejudices. The above article is full of their own intrepretations of what they see, or hope to see, almost as if looking around for some new McCarthyism.

When you don't post any links, then one assumes you are just repeating "talking points" that you heard somewhere.

And this is just an outright accusation: As if anyone is for censorship, except those deep in political correctness. This is a self congratutory screed by a group currying favor amongst those who have a need to feel superior in this case superior to conservative Republicans.

History of Stem Cell Research

The history of stem cell research had a benign, embryonic beginning in the mid 1800's with the discovery that some cells could generate other cells. Now stem cell research is embroiled in a controversy over the use of human embryonic stem cells for research. In the early 1900's the first real stem cells were discovered when it was found that some cells generate blood cells.

*******

In 1973 a moratorium was placed on government funding for human embryo research. In 1988 a NIH panel voted 19 to 2 in favor of government funding. In 1990, Congress voted to override the moratorium on government funding of embryonic stem cell research, which was vetoed by President George Bush. President Clinton lifted the ban, but changed his mind the following year after public outcry. Congress banned federal funding in 1995. In 1998 DHHS Secretary Sullivan extended the moratorium. In 2000, President Bill Clinton allowed funding of research on cells derived from aborted human fetuses, but not from embryonic cells. On August 9, 2001, President George W. Bush announced his decision to allow Federal funding of research only on existing human embryonic stem cell lines created prior to his announcement.

-------------------------------

What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells? [Stem Cell Information]

embryonic stem cell versus adult stem cells
 
When you don't post any links, then one assumes you are just repeating "talking points" that you heard somewhere.
No, to be accurate you can just assume that I am posting my own opinion. And I stand by my original opinion that what I called a screed was a screed.

You didn't just present "opinion", which of course should be respected. You also gave what you thought were a couple of "facts":

Interesting that President Bush first funded stem cell research, but placed limits on the source of the embryonic stem cells. It was limited to existing stem cell lines, and adult stem cell funding was not restricted and was supported by President Bush as a more viable means of research. It turns out that adult stem cells have been much more productive than embryonic.

Which I responded to:

In 1973 a moratorium was placed on government funding (which would lead you to believe that government funding was taking place BEFORE 1973) for human embryo research. In 1988 a NIH panel voted 19 to 2 in favor of government funding. (which proves that it was taking place in 1988 before either Bush was president).

That means that NEITHER Bush was "first".

Then your other claim that adult stem cells were "better". Was that also "opinion"?

Links support "opinion" with "facts".
 
So many cool things in science, all forms of science. Yet every forum I"ve been on, including this one, nobody seems all that interested. Kind of sad, they would rather babble on about partisan nonsense, call each other names, etc than actually discuss many of the amazing things this world has to offer.
While I don't disagree with you at all, I am on this forum for discussion of politics, primarily. I can get my fill of science, and damn good science, elsewhere.

Really? I see no evidence that you would recognize good science from your posts. In fact, you seem to be very much into the type of actions to de-legitimize real science.
She's a warmer?

Ida never known!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
When you don't post any links, then one assumes you are just repeating "talking points" that you heard somewhere.
No, to be accurate you can just assume that I am posting my own opinion. And I stand by my original opinion that what I called a screed was a screed.

You didn't just present "opinion", which of course should be respected. You also gave what you thought were a couple of "facts":

Interesting that President Bush first funded stem cell research, but placed limits on the source of the embryonic stem cells. It was limited to existing stem cell lines, and adult stem cell funding was not restricted and was supported by President Bush as a more viable means of research. It turns out that adult stem cells have been much more productive than embryonic.

Which I responded to:

In 1973 a moratorium was placed on government funding (which would lead you to believe that government funding was taking place BEFORE 1973) for human embryo research. In 1988 a NIH panel voted 19 to 2 in favor of government funding. (which proves that it was taking place in 1988 before either Bush was president).

That means that NEITHER Bush was "first".

Then your other claim that adult stem cells were "better". Was that also "opinion"?

Links support "opinion" with "facts".

Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote: Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research was first approved under President Bill Clinton on January 19, 1999,[13] but no money was to be spent until the guidelines were published. The guidelines were released under Clinton on August 23, 2000.[14] They allowed use of unused frozen embryos. On August 9, 2001, before any funding was granted under these guidelines, Bush announced modifications to the guidelines to allow use of only existing stem cell lines.[15] While Bush claimed that more than 60 embryonic stem cell lines already existed from privately funded research, scientists in 2003 said there were only 11 usable lines, and in 2005 that all lines approved for Federal funding are contaminated and unusable.[16] Adult stem cell funding was not restricted and was supported by President Bush as a more viable means of research

Then your other claim that adult stem cells were "better". Was that also "opinion"?

Links support "opinion" with "facts".
I've heard plenty of news reports since Bush allowed Fed spending. (Updated April 11, 2007)
stemcellresearch.org - Fact Sheet: Adult Stem Cells (72) v. Embryonic Stem Cells (0)
 

Forum List

Back
Top