Political Denial & Science: Right and Left

[Dante]

Been following Michael Spector, author of Denialism ..how irrational thinking...

When did it become part of political ideology to be anti science?

When the logical fallacy became critical thinking. There have always been those that deny science or only accept science to the extent that they see personal benefit but it is when we came to believe that the fallacies we spin are logic that science fell away.

thank you for the post\

 

[Old Rocks]

Crappy in my book is one who does not value his/her scientific integrity above all else. Once that is blown, grant awards will be few and far between. One's reputation in integrity is one's largest asset.

Lack of scientific integrity is using rhetoric other than logic and the science to persuade, among other things.

i hear ya. agreed. science is moreso being usurped than the root of the issue, however, particularly on issues with as great latitude as climate, lobbyists value more than scientific integrity, and 'ethical' research begets very leading hypotheses.

thats before it gets to the lobbyist's desk.

And for exactly such a reason, I insist that if one wishes to use science to argue in favor (or against) AGW, they use the actual science (peer-reviewed work), not blogs, not opinions of environmentalists/activists/journalists/politicians/policy-makers.

If they don't want their argument to have a foundation of 'the science', then fine, use other sources. But if one is going to play the part, I insist that they play it correctly and use actual science.

Once again, you lie, Si. I have been doing precisely that for a good long time, and received only derision from you.

I have posted from Science, from Nature, from the Journal of Geo-Physical Research, and many other peer reviewed sources, as well.

When are you going to do the same?

 

[Dante]

i hear ya. agreed. science is moreso being usurped than the root of the issue, however, particularly on issues with as great latitude as climate, lobbyists value more than scientific integrity, and 'ethical' research begets very leading hypotheses.

thats before it gets to the lobbyist's desk.

And for exactly such a reason, I insist that if one wishes to use science to argue in favor (or against) AGW, they use the actual science (peer-reviewed work), not blogs, not opinions of environmentalists/activists/journalists/politicians/policy-makers.

If they don't want their argument to have a foundation of 'the science', then fine, use other sources. But if one is going to play the part, I insist that they play it correctly and use actual science.

Once again, you lie, Si. I have been doing precisely that for a good long time, and received only derision from you.

I have posted from Science, from Nature, from the Journal of Geo-Physical Research, and many other peer reviewed sources, as well.

When are you going to do the same?

We have a winner folks. Nice to have a winner on a board which sees so many whiners come and go.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Phil Jones and the World's Greatest Scientific Hoax perpetrated by East Anglia have damaged the scientific communities ability to self regulate.

Moreover, real science would have to ask itself, "Is the contemptuous warming on Mars a sign that we are vastly overestimating mankind contribution to warming on Earth?" Nah. We're Warmers, fuck the facts

OMFG, Crusader Frank shouts another of his nitwittisms at the dead air.

A few scientits fuck up and all of a sudden the earth is flat and all the climate research done for decades by thousands of people is all of a sudden called into question and viewed as invalid.

Dev Mawst you should try to read some of this stuff for yourself, might save you some embarrassment in the future.

As far as this post, sorry, the damage is done and you've outed yourself, not so much as a Warmer, but a Warmer Wannabe.

It wasn't "a few scientists" all the data is rotten to the core and then they purged it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Master Dev! The Planet is in danger!! How shall we combat this man made warming trend, that appears to be cooling the planet and lulling us into a false sense of security?

 

[Dante]

CrusaderFrank wets his pants over DevNell again.

go figure

 

[Dante]

Crappy in my book is one who does not value his/her scientific integrity above all else. Once that is blown, grant awards will be few and far between. One's reputation in integrity is one's largest asset.

Lack of scientific integrity is using rhetoric other than logic and the science to persuade, among other things.

i hear ya. agreed. science is moreso being usurped than the root of the issue, however, particularly on issues with as great latitude as climate, lobbyists value more than scientific integrity, and 'ethical' research begets very leading hypotheses.

thats before it gets to the lobbyist's desk.

And for exactly such a reason, I insist that if one wishes to use science to argue in favor (or against) AGW, they use the actual science (peer-reviewed work), not blogs, not opinions of environmentalists/activists/journalists/politicians/policy-makers.

If they don't want their argument to have a foundation of 'the science', then fine, use other sources. But if one is going to play the part, I insist that they play it correctly and use actual science.

this could get good

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now youre going to Neg me you little fucking troll?

This won't end well for you

 

[Dante]

Now youre going to Neg me you little fucking troll?

This won't end well for you

What's the matter? Big fish in little pond doesn't like it when he gets a small dose of his own medicine?

Go Fuck Yourself You Phony Prick Texan.

 

[rdean]

Been following Michael Spector, author of Denialism ..how irrational thinking...

When did it become part of political ideology to be anti science?

We have the progressives spouting nonsense about big pharma and corporate farms and scientifically modified food...and we have right wing conservatives denying climate change (diff than global warming) and trying to stop stem cell research and believing some of the nonsense progressives spout.

We have the crazies shouting about vaccines and chiildhood diagnosis of a variety of syndromes including autism...scares about floride in water supplies...irrational H1N1 vaccine fears.

how many here are deniers of science, and WTF happened to critical and rational thinking in American politics?

What happened is they all moved to the Republican Party. 6% of Republicans are scientists. I suspect most of those are not, in any way, involved with the biological sciences.

I also suspect you have an odd mix. On one side, you have scientists who developed medicines, doctors, and researchers, on the other, you have businessmen. No scientist makes as much as a CEO. The scientist may be smart enough to become a CEO, but the CEO will NEVER be smart enough to develop medicine.

Republicans benefit from the science they believe is a lie. It's called "hypocrisy". They are being taken care of by the liberals. Those darn "elitist" researchers and scientists.