Renowned Physicist quits American Physical Society

[Charles_Main]

Why do right wingers think they can judge who is right and who is wrong when it comes to "science"?

What the Fuck are you talking about Dean.

That is Exactly what you guys are doing in this thread, and every other thread.

Your sources and scientists are right, everyone else is wrong. You judge all the time in exactly the same way you just accused Right wingers of doing.

 

[rdean]

Why do right wingers think they can judge who is right and who is wrong when it comes to "science"?

What the Fuck are you talking about Dean.

That is Exactly what you guys are doing in this thread, and every other thread.

Your sources and scientists are right, everyone else is wrong. You judge all the time in exactly the same way you just accused Right wingers of doing.

There is a huge difference between, "study and gathering data" and "denying what you don't want to hear because it's inconvenient". One is science, the other is what "right wingers" do.

Come on. Don't you believe in "Noah's Ark" and "dinosaurs walked with humans"?

 

[westwall]

Why do right wingers think they can judge who is right and who is wrong when it comes to "science"?

Don't they believe that the Grand Canyon came from "Noah's Flood" and the "Flintstones" is actually a "documentary"?

Absolutely the pot calling the kettle there dean. You insult the essence of science with your incessant blathering. Go away and annoy somebody else.

 

[Charles_Main]

Why do right wingers think they can judge who is right and who is wrong when it comes to "science"?

What the Fuck are you talking about Dean.

That is Exactly what you guys are doing in this thread, and every other thread.

Your sources and scientists are right, everyone else is wrong. You judge all the time in exactly the same way you just accused Right wingers of doing.

There is a huge difference between, "study and gathering data" and "denying what you don't want to hear because it's inconvenient". One is science, the other is what "right wingers" do.

Come on. Don't you believe in "Noah's Ark" and "dinosaurs walked with humans"?

Nope I do not believe those things, and neither do most people on the right. A small minority of far right Religions wackos are the only ones who believe that shit.

Yet you feel the need to paint anyone right of your LEFT views with the same paint brush.

 

[boedicca]

Why do right wingers think they can judge who is right and who is wrong when it comes to "science"?

Don't they believe that the Grand Canyon came from "Noah's Flood" and the "Flintstones" is actually a "documentary"?

Why do Leftwingers think they can judge who is right and who is wrong when it comes to science?

Is ALGORE a scientist? His movie is more fiction than the Flintstones.

 

[rdean]

Why do right wingers think they can judge who is right and who is wrong when it comes to "science"?

Don't they believe that the Grand Canyon came from "Noah's Flood" and the "Flintstones" is actually a "documentary"?

Why do Leftwingers think they can judge who is right and who is wrong when it comes to science?

Is ALGORE a scientist? His movie is more fiction than the Flintstones.

He doesn't pretend to be a scientist. He is merely a concerned citizen. Too bad we don't have many or even any of those on the right.

I know, let's all go apologize to BP -- AGAIN.

 

[boedicca]

BP has absolutely nothing to do with ClimateGate.

And if apologies are going to be issues, perhaps the Obama Administraiton should be first up:

The Obama administration consistently low-balled its estimates of how much oil was pouring into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's runaway well and offered rosy assessments of the spill's impact after the well was capped, independent government investigators said in a bluntly critical report Wednesday.

The repeated underestimation of what became the biggest offshore oil spill in U.S. history contributed to public skepticism about the efficacy of the administration's response, they said.
Advertisement

"By initially underestimating the amount of oil flow and then, at the end of the summer, appearing to underestimate the amount of oil remaining in the gulf, the federal government created the impression that it was either not fully competent to handle the spill or not fully candid with the American people about the scope of the problem," investigators for the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling said in the report.

The report was one of four preliminary assessments prepared for the commission created by President Obama. Taken together, two of the reports paint a picture of a government that was as unprepared to deal with a catastrophic spill as BP. And the portrait of an administration that withheld information from the public and, more specifically, scientists, about how much oil was getting into the water, how much remained and how such estimates were calculated appeared to contradict Obama's pledge to make government more transparent and trustworthy.

The government's estimates of oil flow were highly inaccurate from the start, the report said, and stayed that way until about mid-June — two months after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and sank, killing 11 workers on board and rupturing the BP well.

Independent scientists from institutions such as Columbia University, UC Berkeley and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts calculated much higher flow rates far earlier, from video feeds of oil and gas gushing from the broken riser pipe that had connected the well to the drilling rig on the water's surface.

The report says that the White House Office of Management and Budget refused to let the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration make public some of its long-term, worst-case spill discharge models in the early weeks of the disaster....

Report critical of government response to gulf oil spill - Los Angeles Times

 

[rdean]

What the Fuck are you talking about Dean.

That is Exactly what you guys are doing in this thread, and every other thread.

Your sources and scientists are right, everyone else is wrong. You judge all the time in exactly the same way you just accused Right wingers of doing.

There is a huge difference between, "study and gathering data" and "denying what you don't want to hear because it's inconvenient". One is science, the other is what "right wingers" do.

Come on. Don't you believe in "Noah's Ark" and "dinosaurs walked with humans"?

Nope I do not believe those things, and neither do most people on the right. A small minority of far right Religions wackos are the only ones who believe that shit.

Yet you feel the need to paint anyone right of your LEFT views with the same paint brush.

I don't think you know that much about the right wing. What is it they stand for? Please tell us. We're all ears.


The First Republican Presidential Debate: Three Of Them Don't Believe In Evolution!
(after the debate, Ron Paul also said he didn't believe in evolution. That made four.)

The First Republican Presidential Debate: Three Of Them Don't Believe In Evolution! - Blogcritics Politics

Most Republicans don't believe in evolution

If you go by church attendance, the discrepancy is even larger -- 74% of churchgoers do not believe in evolution. And these are the folks Bush loves to put in in charge of science-based agencies.

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. This suggests that when three Republican presidential candidates at a May debate stated they did not believe in evolution, they were generally in sync with the bulk of the rank-and-file Republicans whose nomination they are seeking to obtain.

Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

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

It's always surprising to me how little Republicans know about their party. I wonder why that is? Even they can't, or won't answer "why"?

 

[Samson]

I worked for an engineer once, who thought "computers" were a "fad".

And?

You're point must be that he built your processor our of rubber bands and paper clips.

 

[boedicca]

Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

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

It's always surprising to me how little Republicans know about their party. I wonder why that is? Even they can't, or won't answer "why"?

OH NOEESSSSSS!!!?!?!??!!!!!


Not the dreaded 6%?!?!?!?!!!!!!!

 

[Samson]

Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

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

It's always surprising to me how little Republicans know about their party. I wonder why that is? Even they can't, or won't answer "why"?

OH NOEESSSSSS!!!?!?!??!!!!!


Not the dreaded 6%?!?!?!?!!!!!!!

6% of rdean's 10000+ posts are reposts of the Dreaded Post.

The other 95% are even MORE mindless drivel.

 

[IanC]

Why is it that scientists that look at th evidence and say this doesn' seem to work, called deniars? They used to be called scientists, and the new ideas were refuted or found to be true. Nowadays it seems even when evidence is found that AGW alarmism is false or exaggerated, it is presented with the codicil that it must be wrong because it disagrees with Global Warming, and more study is needed.

There is a lot of evidence and counter explanations to the AGW theories but they are frequently dismissed out of hand just because of the power of the alarmist dogma. But the paradigm is changing and facts with logic are becoming strong again. And cognitive dissonance will cause a lot of kicking and screaming before the final position is reached. Which will probably be lukewarmer's idea of small changes and no catastropy.

 

[boedicca]

Deniers is a term that is used by politicians and cults, not by true scientists.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have a close family member who, while working on her PhD, supported herself by, among other things, serving as a research assistant for a scientist commissioned to do a scientific study for a lobbyist group. As I do not have permission to do so I can't identify any of the parties involved in any more detail. But to make a long story short, the family member finally had to resign as she did not want to be associated with what she determined to be mostly bogus science skewed to reflect a particular desired outcome. It appears that this is not an uncommon thing in this day and age where winning at politics is more important than character or ethics.

Given the growing number of climate scientists or those who have been included on peer review lists and who now have jumped off the global warming bandwagon, I would think anybody who wanted truth more than they wanted the power, influence, and money available in the whole AGW schtick would be looking more closely at this. But too many scientific organizations are profiting and are not willing to give up those profits.

Some of those scientists who have jumped ship were included on the IPCC 'consensus of scientists'. I have read several who admit that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers which is what the politicians all over the world use to set policy is not written by scientists at all, but is written by lobbyists and political staffers who cherry pick whatever data they choose to put together.

Dr. Lewis seems to be a scientist who is not willing to compromise his character and ethics. And he should inspire all of us to look more closely at all of this stuff.

 

[Si modo]

Why do right wingers think they can judge who is right and who is wrong when it comes to "science"?

Don't they believe that the Grand Canyon came from "Noah's Flood" and the "Flintstones" is actually a "documentary"?

As you can see from the article and letter in the OP, a scientist has indeed, decided what is right and what is wrong. He actually put the logic of scientific discovery and scientific integrity above advocating policy.

Imagine that.

Here's another one who does just that:

An Insult to All Science – Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale
Thursday, December 24th 2009, 1:33 AM EST
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
How do we know our medication is effective; that our vehicle is safe; that the bungee cord in our jump will not break? Most of the population has taken it on faith – faith in the integrity of the scientists – that these questions have been sufficiently studied and answered. And they have been, through effective communication of science in the scientific community. Knowledge is consistently exchanged using our currency, peer-review, until the point where the public benefits from the application of science in our everyday lives. We’ve had faith in the value of that currency, until now.

A few weeks ago, emails reportedly from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in England were published on the internet. With any illegally obtained information, the credibility of the contents should be questioned. However, if these published emails are genuine, the contents indicate a scandal in the climate science community that is an insult to the integrity of the entire scientific community. It’s an insult to truth.

Many scientists have had suspicions about the state of the climate science and the overstated solidity of its predictive ability for some time. I am not a ‘denier’, whatever a denier denies; but I, along with several others have been asking questions about the peer-reviewed science. We cannot conflate climate scientists with environmentalists and activists, though. The latter two have compiled predictive models by the former and asserted that we are headed for doom and destruction if extreme environmental policies are not enacted immediately. Many scientists and critical thinkers have dared ask fundamental questions, though. We have questioned whether the state of the science can allow any definitive conclusion about the significance of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on global warming, let alone its ability to predict future effects.

Article continues below this advert:

Climate scientists peddling predictive models, and the environmentalists who have compiled them, present these models where almost any combination of datasets are consistent with the predictive model indicating near disaster. The Third Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the most celebrity in that predictive science. Climatologist Roger Pielke, for example, has demonstrated that there has yet to be a dataset that is not consistent with these models. The prediction scientists rarely articulate a hypothetical dataset that would be inconsistent with a predictive model. A hypothesis or theory is falsifiable, thus scientific, if it can be both verified and falsified through physical experiments and/or observations. If there exists no dataset for which the IPCC predictive models are inconsistent, the model was never scientific. Where is the demarcation of predictive climate science and pseudo-science if there is no falsifiability?

Other indications and warnings that the science is less than solid have been there as well. A rhetorical analysis of many of the reports indicates that the focus on the science and logic have taken a back seat to a focus on the source and emotions, combining near sophistry and propaganda with bandwagon (consensus) and post hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation as causation) fallacies in logic, for example. When presenting science, if the primary tools of rhetoric are not the science and logic, we should immediately probe further into the actual science.

....

We all should value scientific integrity, but all scientists must value it above all else if there is to be continued growth of scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, this discipline of science has been so soiled by politics that the lines between science and politics are gone. This scandal is an insult to the integrity of all scientists and a devaluation of our currency of peer-review. It deserves the scoff and scorn of our community.​

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4734

 

[Samson]

scientific discovery and scientific integrity above advocating policy.

Imagine that.

Clearly the guy needs to be sent to a One Nation Rally to be "re-educated."

 

[Flopper]

I think I'll stick with the opinion of these guys.

National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
American Meteorological Society
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Academié des Sciences, France
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
Indian National Science Academy, India
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias,Brazil
Académie des Sciences, France
Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Indian National Science Academy, India
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
FRrench Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Union of Concerned Scientists
Woods Hole Research Center
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science

And if they think it is going to warm up 4-6c over the next 90 years then I disagree. Only period that comes close it the younger dyas..

I have not followed this very closely, but don't think 4-6 degrees in 100 years has been acceptable by most of the scientific community.

 

[Flopper]

I think I'll stick with the opinion of these guys.

National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
American Meteorological Society
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Academié des Sciences, France
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
Indian National Science Academy, India
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias,Brazil
Académie des Sciences, France
Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Indian National Science Academy, India
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
FRrench Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Union of Concerned Scientists
Woods Hole Research Center
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science

Feel free to. The Royal Society has just moderated their position on AGW and others will be folowing suit as their memberships revolt against the leadership.

Oh really.
"The new guidance still makes it clear that human activity is one of the likely causes for climate change but now does so in a more considered way."

Royal Society issues new climate change guide that admits 'uncertainties' | Mail Online

Also the Royal Society is not disputing global climate change but rather is questing the amount of predicted change.

 

[Flopper]

Why do right wingers think they can judge who is right and who is wrong when it comes to "science"?

Don't they believe that the Grand Canyon came from "Noah's Flood" and the "Flintstones" is actually a "documentary"?

Why do Leftwingers think they can judge who is right and who is wrong when it comes to science?

Is ALGORE a scientist? His movie is more fiction than the Flintstones.

Could it be that most scientists are are left wingers?

"A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is alienating scientists to a startling degree. Only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats."

Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

 

[Foxfyre]

Why do right wingers think they can judge who is right and who is wrong when it comes to "science"?

Don't they believe that the Grand Canyon came from "Noah's Flood" and the "Flintstones" is actually a "documentary"?

Why do Leftwingers think they can judge who is right and who is wrong when it comes to science?

Is ALGORE a scientist? His movie is more fiction than the Flintstones.

Could it be that most scientists are are left wingers?

"A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is alienating scientists to a startling degree. Only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats."

Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

There is some question about where Pew Research, who generally does a pretty credible job, went to find these 'scientists'. If it was at the university, I would not dispute those numbers at all. If it was in organizations that get most of their funding from government, I again would not dispute those numbers at all.

But since fewer than 25% of Americans identified themselves as Republicans at the time the study was done, that should be factored into the conclusion re ideology of scientists, and it wasn't.

And also it could be significant that more than 80% of engineers identify with the GOP or more conservative ideologies.