Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Jeff Lebowski]

Either that or again you fell in love with your own interpretation of what someone said. When caught, your usual escape is to belittle. LOL on doing a search finding you never belittle.

lol. Whatever, old-timer.

[byu71]

lol. Whatever, old-timer.

Whatever?? I hear my granddaughters say that all the time. Maybe that is where the breakdown is. I am an old timer and you are hip.

[Jeff Lebowski]

My perception is that Democrats are more likely to use regulation to curb industry. Republicans are more likely to seek less regulation of industry. Scientists find some of what consumers and industry do needs to be curbed in order to reverse, if possible, damage done to the atmosphere. The party which loves to regulate grabs onto the the findings of science in order to justify another power grab. If the findings were reversed mandating less regulations, Democrats would reject the findings. However, the scientists could have alleviated this problem by going to work with industry to help find easier ways to make the transition.

That is an overly simplistic explanation. In a broader sense, people on both sides of the political spectrum react to science based on how it impacts our internal biases and worldview, as opposed to dispassionately evaluating the data and coming to rational conclusions.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=1

Consider a person who has heard about a scientific discovery that deeply challenges her belief in divine creation—a new hominid, say, that confirms our evolutionary origins. What happens next, explains political scientist Charles Taber of Stony Brook University, is a subconscious negative response to the new information—and that response, in turn, guides the type of memories and associations formed in the conscious mind. "They retrieve thoughts that are consistent with their previous beliefs," says Taber, "and that will lead them to build an argument and challenge what they're hearing."

In other words, when we think we're reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing. Or to use an analogy offered by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt: We may think we're being scientists, but we're actually being lawyers (PDF). Our "reasoning" is a means to a predetermined end—winning our "case"—and is shot through with biases. They include "confirmation bias," in which we give greater heed to evidence and arguments that bolster our beliefs, and "disconfirmation bias," in which we expend disproportionate energy trying to debunk or refute views and arguments that we find uncongenial.

If you think about it, the vast majority of science is not divisive. Most of it is accepted without controversy. It gets divisive when there is a sacred cow being gored or when the news is disturbing and/or may impact our behavior or eventually impact public policy.

As for left/right imbalance among scientists, the simplest explanation is that in recent years one party has been far more hostile to science than the other.

[byu71]

My perception is that Democrats are more likely to use regulation to curb industry. Republicans are more likely to seek less regulation of industry. Scientists find some of what consumers and industry do needs to be curbed in order to reverse, if possible, damage done to the atmosphere. The party which loves to regulate grabs onto the the findings of science in order to justify another power grab. If the findings were reversed mandating less regulations, Democrats would reject the findings. However, the scientists could have alleviated this problem by going to work with industry to help find easier ways to make the transition.

I read somewhere that the majority of Scientists are democrat for the folowing reasons. One is republicans find themselves on the other side of the climate and evolution issues. Another is academia is a very liberal environment, and that's where they cut their teeth. Third is that a lot of smart and talented conservatives don't hang around of a PH. D. they want out of the ivory tower (which they perceive as hostile) and get into the business world.

Which brings me to another question. How do you define if you are a scientist? Do Engineers who work for major corporations count or is it mainly Professors at Universities?

[Topper]

I read somewhere that the majority of Scientists are democrat for the folowing reasons. One is republicans find themselves on the other side of the climate and evolution issues. Another is academia is a very liberal environment, and that's where they cut their teeth. Third is that a lot of smart and talented conservatives don't hang around of a PH. D. they want out of the ivory tower (which they perceive as hostile) and get into the business world.

Which brings me to another question. How do you define if you are a scientist? Do Engineers who work for major corporations count or is it mainly Professors at Universities?

I don't know if it is fair to group scientists as more inclined to be one party or another. We are aware of the scientists which Democrats claim because they make it a political issue. In economics, perhaps a soft science, most economists tend to be Democrats or vote for Democrats, but that may be related to the fact that many of these are Keynesians seeking government employment.

Engineering is based upon practical scientific principles. Many of these "scientists" if employed in the oil industry or if they make a good income will tend to vote with their pocket books. i.e., GOP. Cynical as it may sound, most people vote with self-interest. Some may vote emotionally. Perhaps those two are not distinguishable, but different parts of the same beast. However, it is part of the great rhetorical effort of politics to align all "smart" people, or all "righteous" people with their side. Scientists are viewed as the "smart" people and you don't want to be aligned against the "smart" people.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Even though most of the anti-science nonsense comes from the right these days, there are a few areas where the left is anti-science. One of those is fracking. I still chuckle thinking of that map that Robin Finderson showed of the entire US aquifer system where he argued (or implied) that fracking fluids could travel all across the US. Yeah, maybe in a few billion years.

Anyway, it looks like the Germans have outlawed fracking until at least 2021, in spite of the fact that they sit on top of huge gas reserves.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/08/f...nt-262572.html

Dumb, dumb, dumb...

[USUC]

Even though most of the anti-science nonsense comes from the right these days, there are a few areas where the left is anti-science. One of those is fracking. I still chuckle thinking of that map that Robin Finderson showed of the entire US aquifer system where he argued (or implied) that fracking fluids could travel all across the US. Yeah, maybe in a few billion years.

Anyway, it looks like the Germans have outlawed fracking until at least 2021, in spite of the fact that they sit on top of huge gas reserves.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/08/f...nt-262572.html

Dumb, dumb, dumb...

Especially considering that they depend heavily on Russian gas.

[wally]

I still chuckle thinking of that map that Robin Finderson showed of the entire US aquifer system where he argued (or implied) that fracking fluids could travel all across the US. Yeah, maybe in a few billion years.

lol! I must have missed that one. hydrogeology fail!

I occasionally run into people who think that an aquifer is some sort of giant underground cave with a lake in it. Like, a beachfront resort location for albinos or something.

[Pelado]

lol! I must have missed that one. hydrogeology fail!

I occasionally run into people who think that an aquifer is some sort of giant underground cave with a lake in it. Like, a beachfront resort location for albinos or something.

I may need to get a refund on a recent timeshare acquisition.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Even though most of the anti-science nonsense comes from the right these days, there are a few areas where the left is anti-science. One of those is fracking. I still chuckle thinking of that map that Robin Finderson showed of the entire US aquifer system where he argued (or implied) that fracking fluids could travel all across the US. Yeah, maybe in a few billion years.

Anyway, it looks like the Germans have outlawed fracking until at least 2021, in spite of the fact that they sit on top of huge gas reserves.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/08/f...nt-262572.html

Dumb, dumb, dumb...

The left is equally as anti-science as the right. There's fracking, there's the genetically modified food nonsense (which leads to real life and death results, particularly in the case of golden rice), the wind/solar power boondoggle while ignoring nuclear power. Additionally, any research relating to genetics and race/gender/sexual orientation is more or less off limits.

The few bible thumpers that dispute evolution in addition to the much more wide spread skepticism held by the right towards a branch of science that has become heavily-politicized and used to pursue lefty goals doesn't make the right anymore anti-science to the lefties. The lefties are either downright morons as it relates to science (genetically modified food) or they don't like inconvenient findings (fracking and the lack of practicality of wind/solar power) to their political goals. Steve Jobs is a hero to people across political lines, but he was a hardcore lefty and a genius who had no clue as to the limits of his genius. His faith in science didn't extend to his own cancer treatment. The reliance on hokey witch doctor nonsense doesn't only extend to those in Utah that believe in the healing powers of fragrant oils, it has a big time following within the more crunchy granola factions on the left. Steve Jobs and Dave Rose had the same kind of pancreatic cancer, one is dead and the other is alive.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Additionally, any research relating to genetics and race/gender/sexual orientation is more or less off limits.

Please tell me more about this. Especially the sexual orientation part. What science is the left suppressing?

[Topper]

The left is equally as anti-science as the right. There's fracking, there's the genetically modified food nonsense (which leads to real life and death results, particularly in the case of golden rice), the wind/solar power boondoggle while ignoring nuclear power. Additionally, any research relating to genetics and race/gender/sexual orientation is more or less off limits.

The few bible thumpers that dispute evolution in addition to the much more wide spread skepticism held by the right towards a branch of science that has become heavily-politicized and used to pursue lefty goals doesn't make the right anymore anti-science to the lefties. The lefties are either downright morons as it relates to science (genetically modified food) or they don't like inconvenient findings (fracking and the lack of practicality of wind/solar power) to their political goals. Steve Jobs is a hero to people across political lines, but he was a hardcore lefty and a genius who had no clue as to the limits of his genius. His faith in science didn't extend to his own cancer treatment. The reliance on hokey witch doctor nonsense doesn't only extend to those in Utah that believe in the healing powers of fragrant oils, it has a big time following within the more crunchy granola factions on the left. Steve Jobs and Dave Rose had the same kind of pancreatic cancer, one is dead and the other is alive.

I am no fan of the left, none whatsoever, and believe where its interests in favor of control, taxation and regulation coalesce with science, the interests do so only by shear luck, not by design. Nonetheless, the right has its share of whackos. Anti-evolution, anti-stem cell research, and many anti-environmental movements come from the fringe right.

[Northwestcoug]

Steve Jobs and Dave Rose had the same kind of pancreatic cancer, one is dead and the other is alive.

Although Jobs did himself no favors with his alternative therapy, this is an oversimplification. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors run the gamut from indolent to very agressive. I'm not sure where either of their tumors resided on this spectrum. If I had to bet, I'd guess Rose's was on the more indolent side, as he recently had small metastases treated. Jobs seems like he succombed rather quickly.

[CardiacCoug]

Although Jobs did himself no favors with his alternative therapy, this is an oversimplification. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors run the gamut from indolent to very agressive. I'm not sure where either of their tumors resided on this spectrum. If I had to bet, I'd guess Rose's was on the more indolent side, as he recently had small metastases treated. Jobs seems like he succombed rather quickly.

Steve Jobs was diagnosed in 2003 and didn't die until 2011. He refused even to have the mass excised for 9 months after his initial diagnosis in favor of vitamins, juicing, acupuncture, etc.

[Donuthole]

Steve Jobs was diagnosed in 2003 and didn't die until 2011. He refused even to have the mass excised for 9 months after his initial diagnosis in favor of vitamins, juicing, acupuncture, etc.

Also, Rose's was very aggressive, at least initially. The docs were not very hopeful about his prognosis after the first procedure as they headed into his first procedure.

EDIT: That was poorly worded, initially.