delegitamizing science

[PixieStix]

The FDA approved a new way to control smokers by mandating the of placing ethylene vinyl acetate in the cigarette tube. In essense they are allowing smokers to smoke plastic.

While cigarette companies are forced to label all the ingredients. Does the FDA tell you what they forced the companies to place in the cigarette tube? No

Isn't the FDA wonderful protectors off health?

A bloated beurocracy with no concern for you or I

Where does the FDA get their junk science?

Science and common sense needs to be applied not politics and junk science for the sake of an agenda

 

[blu]

The only thing I find annoying about it is that people who don't even understand basic science just jump on the conclusions of those who do and act like its gospel. This happened with the liberals jumping on bunk science to begin with and now the cons who jump to conclusions based on science they don't know.

 

[Liability]

The only thing I find annoying about it is that people who don't even understand basic science just jump on the conclusions of those who do and act like its gospel. This happened with the liberals jumping on bunk science to begin with and now the cons who jump to conclusions based on science they don't know.

Liberal or conservative is SUPPOSED to be irrelevant to "good" science.*

But when folks nominally "in" the field of science literally cook the books as regards scientific data, the "good" part of "good science" goes out the window.


_______________
* A sad truth is revealed however. Even scientists are merely humans and like all other humans they run the risk of occasionally acting out of passion rather than by the dictates of true, objective science.

 

[Liability]

Oh, and one more thing:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/96965-for-the-agw-faithers.html

 

[Toro]

Most climatologists believe that mankind is causing global warming. However, that does not mean that there are vested interests that are trying to suppress contradictory information, either because they truly believe or for monetary and stature reasons.

But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them.

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.

Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?

Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal. ...

Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.

None of these outfits are per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes.

Bret Stephens: Climategate: Follow the Money - WSJ.com

In fact, however, it is not just the scientists are biased, it is most people. Most people are not interested in understanding the truth, or at least most people with strongly held beliefs. Most people are instead interested in reinforcing their preconceived views and deeply held beliefs. You can take an issue and line up people on both sides based on their ideology. The Left will believe it because corporations are bad and government needs to intervene. The Right will oppose it because it requires government intervention to stop it. It doesn't matter what the issue is. Now, one side will be right and one side will be wrong to some degree, but that is not why people believe or oppose. They believe or oppose because it conforms with their ideology.

To balance the above article, here is one that supports the global warming view.

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense: Scientific American

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Even at the height of the tobacco industries efforts to cast doubt on the scientific findings concerning tobacco, they did not try to denigrate the scientists involved in the research. Today, with trillions of dollars at stake, there is a concerted effort to cast all scientists as the enemy, as liars trying to pervert the system.

While the hacked e-mails concern only a few scientists, the coverage is as if all scientists are involved in a vast conspiracy. Even though no one has yet to show where there is any wrongdoing by the scientists involved in the hacked e-mails.

This assasination of character of a whole class of people is beginning to look like the McCarthy Era bullshit all over again.

It is time for the scientific community to start punching back hard.

You do not mind one little bit doing the very thing you whine about here to any scientist that disagrees with you on Man Made Global Warming. You do it in every thread to every scientist that ever disagrees with what you believe. You attack their character and claim they all work for big Oil or are paid to lie for Big Oil.

 

[Si modo]

Most climatologists believe that mankind is causing global warming. However, that does not mean that there are vested interests that are trying to suppress contradictory information, either because they truly believe or for monetary and stature reasons.

....

Whenever ANY scientist puts political or monetary agendas, for example, above their scientific integrity when they do and report science, they are not good scientists.

 

[Toro]

Whenever ANY scientist puts political or monetary agendas, for example, above their scientific integrity when they do and report science, they are not good scientists.

I agree completely.

However, there is no evidence that most scientists do this.

 

[Liability]

Whenever ANY scientist puts political or monetary agendas, for example, above their scientific integrity when they do and report science, they are not good scientists.

I agree completely.

However, there is no evidence that most scientists do this.

I don't disagree with you, either, on that last point. But it still presents a legitimate question.

Of all the scientists who have been touted as "supporting" the alleged "concensus" on AGW, how many of them were AWARE that the data had been skewed, altered, suppressed or otherwise tainted?

 

[Toro]

Whenever ANY scientist puts political or monetary agendas, for example, above their scientific integrity when they do and report science, they are not good scientists.

I agree completely.

However, there is no evidence that most scientists do this.

I don't disagree with you, either, on that last point. But it still presents a legitimate question.

Of all the scientists who have been touted as "supporting" the alleged "concensus" on AGW, how many of them were AWARE that the data had been skewed, altered, suppressed or otherwise tainted?

Yeah, I agree. We have to understand, and to do so, we must look at ALL the data, not just what conforms to our beliefs. To make an objective conclusion on global warming, all the data must be available to scientists.

 

[eagleseven]

It is time for the scientific community to start punching back hard.

You fool.

We must excise the cancer, not punch the oncologist.

The East Anglia CRU has set back climatology by 15 years, at least.

 

[The T]

Most climatologists believe that mankind is causing global warming. However, that does not mean that there are vested interests that are trying to suppress contradictory information, either because they truly believe or for monetary and stature reasons.

....

Whenever ANY scientist puts political or monetary agendas, for example, above their scientific integrity when they do and report science, they are not good scientists.

You highlight something that I have been harping on for a few weeks now. And the word is pecuniary.

These people have let their outside politacal /monetary interests override what should be their pure scientific one, and have given science a black eye.

They have taken 'what is' to a lower level of 'what they wish it to be', and frankly it's sad overall FOR science as a whole community. (Those that ARE working for the betterment of mankind by their work).

 

[Old Rocks]

On tobacco. I had the rare privelege of watching my mother-in-law die of emphasema. My brother, two years younger than I am is winded getting out of the car on a low mountain pass, 4000 ft. I still hike to 14,000. He and my mother-in-law were heavy smokers. And, yes, my brother has been diagnosed with emphasema. For all of you defending that habit, well, have another, why don't you.

On global warming. For many years, scientists tried to get their message out. Dr. Hansen testified before Congress in 1988, and got zero results. He made predictions then that have come to pass, and has had those predictions constantly lied about by the denialists. It was not until an ex-politician, turned businessman, Al Gore, started lecturing on the subject in layman's terms, then made a movie out of the lecture, that the public finally paid attention.


Since that movie, the lies concerning the movie, concerning the scientists engaged in the study of climate have been unremitting.

And look at the 'scientists' that are leading the Denialtists. Lindzen and Singer. Both tobacco company whores. Don't like the language? Tough shit, I don't like watching people I like die because of the lies told by such 'scientists'. For I was constantly being told by smokers that 'the science isn't settled'. That is the Doubt Industry at it's best.

Now we have a major disaster in the making concerning the affects of AGW. And the same old liars are trotting out the same old tricks. Only this time, unlike smoking, none of us have a choice. We are all on the same planet, and will be in the same place as it hits the fan.

The data and results obtained by the scientists that are being attacked have been obtained by many other scientists using data that they have obtained independently. The National Academy of Sciences independently confirmed the Mann graph in 2006.

This is an attack on all scientists. It is not just limited to Mann and the East Anglia scientists. From the posts here you can see the direction that this is taking.

Yes, get the raw data out there. Not that it is not already out there, it has been posted here from NASA, NOAA, and raw research here many times. But when one of the whores puts out the lies, make it a big deal. Don't like this kind of talk coming back your way? Prefer nice polite in the back ground scientists? Too fucking bad. You started a fight, I think you will find it interesting where this fight will take us.

 

[del]

On tobacco. I had the rare privelege of watching my mother-in-law die of emphasema. My brother, two years younger than I am is winded getting out of the car on a low mountain pass, 4000 ft. I still hike to 14,000. He and my mother-in-law were heavy smokers. And, yes, my brother has been diagnosed with emphasema. For all of you defending that habit, well, have another, why don't you.

On global warming. For many years, scientists tried to get their message out. Dr. Hansen testified before Congress in 1988, and got zero results. He made predictions then that have come to pass, and has had those predictions constantly lied about by the denialists. It was not until an ex-politician, turned businessman, Al Gore, started lecturing on the subject in layman's terms, then made a movie out of the lecture, that the public finally paid attention.


Since that movie, the lies concerning the movie, concerning the scientists engaged in the study of climate have been unremitting.

And look at the 'scientists' that are leading the Denialtists. Lindzen and Singer. Both tobacco company whores. Don't like the language? Tough shit, I don't like watching people I like die because of the lies told by such 'scientists'. For I was constantly being told by smokers that 'the science isn't settled'. That is the Doubt Industry at it's best.

Now we have a major disaster in the making concerning the affects of AGW. And the same old liars are trotting out the same old tricks. Only this time, unlike smoking, none of us have a choice. We are all on the same planet, and will be in the same place as it hits the fan.

The data and results obtained by the scientists that are being attacked have been obtained by many other scientists using data that they have obtained independently. The National Academy of Sciences independently confirmed the Mann graph in 2006.

This is an attack on all scientists. It is not just limited to Mann and the East Anglia scientists. From the posts here you can see the direction that this is taking.

Yes, get the raw data out there. Not that it is not already out there, it has been posted here from NASA, NOAA, and raw research here many times. But when one of the whores puts out the lies, make it a big deal. Don't like this kind of talk coming back your way? Prefer nice polite in the back ground scientists? Too fucking bad. You started a fight, I think you will find it interesting where this fight will take us.

try to stay on topic. we were discussing how real scientists don't throw out their data.

go.

 

[Diuretic]

The difference is that the Warmers are not Scientists, they are pushing a political agenda.

What political agenda? To point out that there's evidence that humans are contributing to global climate change and might want to do something about it before it's too late?

 

[Diuretic]

Even at the height of the tobacco industries efforts to cast doubt on the scientific findings concerning tobacco, they did not try to denigrate the scientists involved in the research. Today, with trillions of dollars at stake, there is a concerted effort to cast all scientists as the enemy, as liars trying to pervert the system.

While the hacked e-mails concern only a few scientists, the coverage is as if all scientists are involved in a vast conspiracy. Even though no one has yet to show where there is any wrongdoing by the scientists involved in the hacked e-mails.

This assasination of character of a whole class of people is beginning to look like the McCarthy Era bullshit all over again.

It is time for the scientific community to start punching back hard.

looks like it is....

"The head of the climate-change body at the centre of a leaked e-mail controversy has stepped down from his post while he is investigated over allegations of professional misconduct."

Climate-change scientist Phil Jones steps down in e-mail row inquiry - Times Online

"Dr. Michael E. Mann, famed originator of the "Hockey Stick" graph, is now officially under investigation by his current employer, Penn State University"

Penn State to investigate Michael Mann--or whitewash him

one would think a champion of science like you would welcome this; one would apparently be wrong.

Is it still being investigated or has the investigation concluded?

 

[Diuretic]

It is time for the scientific community to start punching back hard.

You fool.

We must excise the cancer, not punch the oncologist.

The East Anglia CRU has set back climatology by 15 years, at least.

I'd say week, maybe two.

 

[Diuretic]

Most climatologists believe that mankind is causing global warming. However, that does not mean that there are vested interests that are trying to suppress contradictory information, either because they truly believe or for monetary and stature reasons.

....

Whenever ANY scientist puts political or monetary agendas, for example, above their scientific integrity when they do and report science, they are not good scientists.

You highlight something that I have been harping on for a few weeks now. And the word is pecuniary.

These people have let their outside politacal /monetary interests override what should be their pure scientific one, and have given science a black eye.

They have taken 'what is' to a lower level of 'what they wish it to be', and frankly it's sad overall FOR science as a whole community. (Those that ARE working for the betterment of mankind by their work).

And they are being opposed by whom?

 

[Si modo]

It is time for the scientific community to start punching back hard.

You fool.

We must excise the cancer, not punch the oncologist.

The East Anglia CRU has set back climatology by 15 years, at least.

I'd say week, maybe two.

No. This is bad.

 

[eagleseven]

On tobacco. I had the rare privelege of watching my mother-in-law die of emphasema.

I'm sorry for your loss. Perhaps you could start a poll to see if anyone gives a fuck?

This is an attack on all scientists.

Yes, Mann and the East Anglia CRU threaten the credibility of scientists everywhere...which is why they must be punished.

It is not just limited to Mann and the East Anglia scientists. From the posts here you can see the direction that this is taking.

Indeed, dishonesty will not be tolerated in the scientific community.

Yes, get the raw data out there.

That will be difficulty, as the raw data was destroyed by Dr. Phil Jones.

Not that it is not already out there, it has been posted here from NASA, NOAA, and raw research here many times.

No, it hasn't, as Phil Jones and company have just admitted. Have you been asleep for the past month?

But when one of the whores puts out the lies, make it a big deal. Don't like this kind of talk coming back your way? Prefer nice polite in the back ground scientists? Too fucking bad. You started a fight, I think you will find it interesting where this fight will take us.

That's how we settle scientific debates...calling eachother names! Anyone who dares to challenge our theory will be cut down and ruined.

Thank you for demonstrating the fundamental problems with the climatology community, revealed by this scandal.