Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!

Anyone notice the MONSTER thread on Gobal Warming? It's actually too
huge to read on Google!

What is clear that Global Warming like "gun control" is a political
agenda where lies abound and ethical science goes out the window.

We find paid minions of the "desired" view infesting the Usenet and
using clever wording and lies to further their agenda.

The Global warming thing is a great example.

They say global warming is real (it is!)
Then try to make the case that some politicians (Bush) have tried to
deny global warming. (He has in the past)
Then comes the huge "leap of faith" where CO2 is accused by reason of
a "greenhouse effect" to be the "cause" of global warming.
Then comes "proof" in the form of CO2 level charts that match global
ocean temperatures. (This "causality" is a lie.)

Bottom line we all must accept global warming as due to our SUVs and
power plants or these guys will call us nasty names!

Brrrrr! I'm shaking in my boots!

This is all identical to the "gun control" debate where firearm
ownership is tied by the propagandists to higher crime rates. Too bad
all scientific studies including the ones mandated by Congress and
done by the CDC found NO such connections.

So what am I getting at here? These issues are NOT what I'm talking
about. I"m not trying to forward a political agenda here, save ONE:
To take the POLITICS out of Science!

Science, it seems has developed a certain amount of well-deserved
credibility in the public perception. So it isn't surprising that
those with a political agenda would try to USE that public credibility
to further their political agendas. What I'm saying here is that we
scientists, need to stand up and speak out. No, not take sides in the
debate lies. And certainly not to join all the noise of name-calling
and "proofs by assertion" that characterize political "debates".

No! We need to squawk loud and often about this SUBVERSION of the
integrity of Science by political agendas. When lies are all over the
media being held up as "science" someone needs to point it out and
when prizes are given for bogus research they need to be taken back
and the schools embarrassed! In short all this MISUSE of OUR science
for political purpose needs to stop and it's only going to stop if WE
start speaking out instead of going along with those pretending there
is a "scientific" debate where there actually is none!

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:00:34 -0700, Benj wrote:


Anyone notice the MONSTER thread on Gobal Warming? It's actually too huge
to read on Google!

What is clear that Global Warming like "gun control" is a political agenda
where lies abound and ethical science goes out the window.

We find paid minions of the "desired" view infesting the Usenet and using
clever wording and lies to further their agenda.

The Global warming thing is a great example.

They say global warming is real (it is!) Then try to make the case that
some politicians (Bush) have tried to deny global warming. (He has in the
past) Then comes the huge "leap of faith" where CO2 is accused by reason
of a "greenhouse effect" to be the "cause" of global warming. Then comes
"proof" in the form of CO2 level charts that match global ocean
temperatures. (This "causality" is a lie.)

Bottom line we all must accept global warming as due to our SUVs and power
plants or these guys will call us nasty names!

Brrrrr! I'm shaking in my boots!

This is all identical to the "gun control" debate where firearm ownership
is tied by the propagandists to higher crime rates. Too bad all
scientific studies including the ones mandated by Congress and done by the
CDC found NO such connections.

So what am I getting at here? These issues are NOT what I'm talking
about. I"m not trying to forward a political agenda here, save ONE: To
take the POLITICS out of Science!

Science, it seems has developed a certain amount of well-deserved
credibility in the public perception. So it isn't surprising that those
with a political agenda would try to USE that public credibility to
further their political agendas. What I'm saying here is that we
scientists, need to stand up and speak out. No, not take sides in the
debate lies. And certainly not to join all the noise of name-calling and
"proofs by assertion" that characterize political "debates".

No! We need to squawk loud and often about this SUBVERSION of the
integrity of Science by political agendas. When lies are all over the
media being held up as "science" someone needs to point it out and when
prizes are given for bogus research they need to be taken back and the
schools embarrassed! In short all this MISUSE of OUR science for political
purpose needs to stop and it's only going to stop if WE start speaking out
instead of going along with those pretending there is a "scientific"
debate where there actually is none!

You are spot on. Get a good newsreader and join the fray. We need more
people with science backgrounds.

"Bill Ward" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:00:34 -0700, Benj wrote:


Anyone notice the MONSTER thread on Gobal Warming? It's actually too huge
to read on Google!

What is clear that Global Warming like "gun control" is a political
agenda
where lies abound and ethical science goes out the window.

We find paid minions of the "desired" view infesting the Usenet and using
clever wording and lies to further their agenda.

The Global warming thing is a great example.

They say global warming is real (it is!) Then try to make the case that
some politicians (Bush) have tried to deny global warming. (He has in the
past) Then comes the huge "leap of faith" where CO2 is accused by reason
of a "greenhouse effect" to be the "cause" of global warming. Then comes
"proof" in the form of CO2 level charts that match global ocean
temperatures. (This "causality" is a lie.)

Bottom line we all must accept global warming as due to our SUVs and
power
plants or these guys will call us nasty names!

Brrrrr! I'm shaking in my boots!

This is all identical to the "gun control" debate where firearm ownership
is tied by the propagandists to higher crime rates. Too bad all
scientific studies including the ones mandated by Congress and done by
the
CDC found NO such connections.

So what am I getting at here? These issues are NOT what I'm talking
about. I"m not trying to forward a political agenda here, save ONE: To
take the POLITICS out of Science!

Science, it seems has developed a certain amount of well-deserved
credibility in the public perception. So it isn't surprising that those
with a political agenda would try to USE that public credibility to
further their political agendas. What I'm saying here is that we
scientists, need to stand up and speak out. No, not take sides in the
debate lies. And certainly not to join all the noise of name-calling and
"proofs by assertion" that characterize political "debates".

No! We need to squawk loud and often about this SUBVERSION of the
integrity of Science by political agendas. When lies are all over the
media being held up as "science" someone needs to point it out and when
prizes are given for bogus research they need to be taken back and the
schools embarrassed! In short all this MISUSE of OUR science for
political
purpose needs to stop and it's only going to stop if WE start speaking
out
instead of going along with those pretending there is a "scientific"
debate where there actually is none!

You are spot on. Get a good newsreader and join the fray. We need more
people with science backgrounds.

What's his science background?

"Server 13" wrote:

:
:"Bill Ward" wrote in message
:newsan.2007.07.30.19.24.27.232559@REMOVETHISix. netcom.com...
:
: You are spot on. Get a good newsreader and join the fray. We need more
: people with science backgrounds.
:
: What's his science background?
:

Why, he agrees with Bill Ward, of course.


--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

People retire and move to Arizona, New Mexico and Florida, not Maine,
Minnesota or Washington.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Oh, a warm balmy planet is a pretty nice thing in fact. You are
entirelly right to point that out. In the deep past of our planet it
actually has spent greater part of its age being warmer than today.
When certain dinosaurs, specifickly those with tall necks, were
walking about, the Earth was so warm that forests grew on the Southern
Polar continent, which appear to have felled theyr leaves during the
months of total darkness.

Now, the problem isn?t that it?s dangerous for the climate to be warm.
No, the problem lies with the time of transition between the two
different climate regimes. You may scoff at that, but literally a
number of societies may not survive through that time of transition,
i.e. till the time that the transition is over and the climate has
stabilized again.

Such a change isn't going to happen over night, or even within a
person's lifetime, not matter what you see in the movies.

So what?

Met any Romans, Phoenicians, Mayans, Carthaginians, Shangs, Summerians,
Aztecs, Goths, Minoans, Hittites, or Bablyonians lately?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I said, the time of transition is the tricky part. Not the time when
all is over and done with.

The time of transition is already begun. That means things are on the
move already. The only thing we can affect now is the share size of
the change, and hence the extend of adaptation that will come
necessary.

What specifickly concerns me the most are India and China, preciselly
due to the share size of theyr respective populations. A disturbtion,
even only a temporary one, say a year or two, of theyr food production
could very quickly have things falling apart over in those two
countries, and the world wouldn´t be able to rescue them preciselly
due to the size of theyr respective populations.

If you yet again do scoff "why should I care" remember both countries
have got nuclear arms as well as the means of theyr delivery over
large distances. Both countries are after all spacepowers as well as
nuclear powers. You still are not in the least worried?

Cheers, Einar

Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:00:34 -0700, Benj wrote:
(snip unscientific arguments)

You are spot on. Get a good newsreader and join the fray. We need more
people with science backgrounds.


You need people with science backgrounds just like creationists need
people with biology backgrounds.

Hop

In article ,
Hop David wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:00:34 -0700, Benj wrote:
(snip unscientific arguments)

You are spot on. Get a good newsreader and join the fray. We need more
people with science backgrounds.


You need people with science backgrounds just like creationists need
people with biology backgrounds.

Yeah. The parallels are quite direct, and in a way, this thread is
interesting because it illustrates the tactics that those with
counter-scientific agendas use to try and deny scientific conclusions.
In the below, "C" stands for Creationists and "D" stands for
global-warming deniers:

TACTIC 1: Invent a "controversy" to give the impression that scientists
can't agree on whether the thing is true or not. Often this is based on
genuine points of disagreement between real scientists, but while those
are about fine details and the scientists are in vehement agreement
about the big picture, the agenda-pushers claim that there is
disagreement about the big picture.
C1: Pointing to disagreements over continuous evolution vs. punctuated
equilibrium, they claim that scientists can't agree on whether evolution
is true.
D1: Pointing to disagreements in the detailed predictions among various
models, they claim that scientists can't agree on whether global warming
is true.

TACTIC 2: Trot out "experts" drummed up somewhere who are not real
scientists, but can play one on TV (and in books, magazines, etc.), to
argue against reality in scientific-sounding terms. Real scientists
easily spot these phonies and can pick their arguments apart with one
hand behind their backs, but the average public can't, which seeds doubt
and also helps bolster tactic 1.
C2: Duane Gish, for example. He's got a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and is a
foremost "Creation Scientist" (never mind the oxymoron). I studied this
guy in college; he's a real nut job. My science professors all agree
he's a bad scientist, and my religion professor disparages his approach
to religion as well.
D2: I don't have names handy at the moment, because I never had to study
these bozos like I did Gish, but I've read about them. Probably one of
the deniers in this thread will trot out their favorite Denier Scientist
if we poke them enough.

TACTIC 3: Yield ground, regroup, and attempt to hold a new position.
C3: "Well, OK, we can't deny the clear demonstrations of evolution
happening on a micro scale, but we still deny that *macro* evolution
ever happened." Or, "OK, maybe evolution happens, but it's all
according to the grand plan of some God^H^H^H Intelligent Designer."
D3: "OK, global warming is real, but it's a natural process and humans
aren't to blame, therefore we still don't need to modify our behavior."
Or, "OK, global warming is real and it's our fault, but a nice toasty
world sounds nice to me, think I'll buy some beachfront property in
Alaska."

It's actually comforting to see Tactic 3 brought out, because it means
the anti-scientific forces are losing. Amazing how long this takes,
though -- evolution is *still* a controversy in some schools in the
Bible Belt, every 5-10 years or so. Quite ridiculous when you think
about it. But then, actually thinking about it is dangerous, as if done
carefully, it may lead to the truth!

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

"Benj" wrote in message
ups.com...

Anyone notice the MONSTER thread on Gobal Warming? It's actually too
huge to read on Google!

What is clear that Global Warming like "gun control" is a political
agenda where lies abound and ethical science goes out the window.

We find paid minions of the "desired" view infesting the Usenet and
using clever wording and lies to further their agenda.

The Global warming thing is a great example.

They say global warming is real (it is!)
Then try to make the case that some politicians (Bush) have tried to
deny global warming. (He has in the past)
Then comes the huge "leap of faith" where CO2 is accused by reason of
a "greenhouse effect" to be the "cause" of global warming.
Then comes "proof" in the form of CO2 level charts that match global
ocean temperatures. (This "causality" is a lie.)

Um, the rest of the world disagrees.

In sci.physics Server 13 wrote:

"Benj" wrote in message
ups.com...

Anyone notice the MONSTER thread on Gobal Warming? It's actually too
huge to read on Google!

What is clear that Global Warming like "gun control" is a political
agenda where lies abound and ethical science goes out the window.

We find paid minions of the "desired" view infesting the Usenet and
using clever wording and lies to further their agenda.

The Global warming thing is a great example.

They say global warming is real (it is!)
Then try to make the case that some politicians (Bush) have tried to
deny global warming. (He has in the past)
Then comes the huge "leap of faith" where CO2 is accused by reason of
a "greenhouse effect" to be the "cause" of global warming.
Then comes "proof" in the form of CO2 level charts that match global
ocean temperatures. (This "causality" is a lie.)

Um, the rest of the world disagrees.

If that were actually true, the above post would have never been made.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
In sci.physics Server 13 wrote:

"Benj" wrote in message
ups.com...

Anyone notice the MONSTER thread on Gobal Warming? It's actually too
huge to read on Google!

What is clear that Global Warming like "gun control" is a political
agenda where lies abound and ethical science goes out the window.

We find paid minions of the "desired" view infesting the Usenet and
using clever wording and lies to further their agenda.

The Global warming thing is a great example.

They say global warming is real (it is!)
Then try to make the case that some politicians (Bush) have tried to
deny global warming. (He has in the past)
Then comes the huge "leap of faith" where CO2 is accused by reason of
a "greenhouse effect" to be the "cause" of global warming.
Then comes "proof" in the form of CO2 level charts that match global
ocean temperatures. (This "causality" is a lie.)

Um, the rest of the world disagrees.

If that were actually true, the above post would have never been made.

OK, the rest of the world -5% Denialists.