Politicized Science Is A Threat To Science

Alex MacDonald

that's His Lordship, to you.....
#16

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
#18
overwhelming consensus that there is a human impact to global climate change
You're right, there is an overwhelming consensus amongst those who are drunk on the punch. The climate will continue to change as it has before we bipeds arrived and long after we're gone. No screed, no spin, nothing political... just reality outside the walls of Nevernever Land.
 

hbmcc

Active Member
#20
Should the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) be heavily motivated by non-scientific opinions, as most conservatives are by simplistic reasoning--e.g., banking, Iraq war, tobacco industry, blind denial, Trumpery--any credibility for "climate change", rather, human induced environmental destruction, would be catastrophic to the whole purpose for remediation and correction.

The advantage for naysayers is that they don't need to defend their position. The poor schmuck with information contrary to status quo--profit--is left with the threat of financial and professional ruin. It's why politicians rely on ignorance of the voter base to spin stupidity for financial gain, for themselves and their monied handlers. If the IPCC can play the same game, good. They have attacked the notion of "what's wrong?" using economic models. So, have profit on their side, now.

For fish, simplistic reasoning by the powers to be says any artificial damming is harmful for [trout, in this case]. Your child damming a creek is an instant criminal. Whereas, in truth, trout need diversity of water flows to thrive. Now, a simpleton may translate this knowledge into saying Hoover Dam, and the useless inland ocean ports created by converting the Columbia into a series of reservoirs are beneficial.

I think our IPCC friends fear the same simplistic counter reasoning should they return to a more scientific mode of "it depends".

BTW, who was the moron that called rape and pillage of the environment "climate change"? That process is in constant fluctuation.
 

cabezon

Sculpin Enterprises
#21

hbmcc

Active Member
#22
Here are two references that describe the history of the application of the term climate change to the current anthropogenic activities: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html and http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming-basic.html.
Steve
I knew I needed to elaborate. An example of simplification.

Climate is prevailing weather conditions in an area over a long period of time. Climate includes the fluctuations of weather patterns associated with, for example, el Nino, la Nina, and; wet and dry cycles throughout the world.

The naysayer will challenge the term "climate change" as a consequence of human induced [environmental damage] change by saying what every person educated before 1980 knew climate to be. Climate can and will change over time, like ice ages. I think the journalist, John Stossel, jumped on this complication to essentially deny IPCC championed "climate change". He said we are simply witnessing what naturally occurs. [Really scary journalism.]
 

cabezon

Sculpin Enterprises
#23
I knew I needed to elaborate. An example of simplification.

Climate is prevailing weather conditions in an area over a long period of time. Climate includes the fluctuations of weather patterns associated with, for example, el Nino, la Nina, and; wet and dry cycles throughout the world.

The naysayer will challenge the term "climate change" as a consequence of human induced [environmental damage] change by saying what every person educated before 1980 knew climate to be. Climate can and will change over time, like ice ages. I think the journalist, John Stossel, jumped on this complication to essentially deny IPCC championed "climate change". He said we are simply witnessing what naturally occurs. [Really scary journalism.]
Hi hbmcc,
I referenced those links because some climate change deniers have argued that the change in prevalence of the terminology is evidence for the weakness of the underlying science and was a "political" decision. Those links demonstrate that the use of climate change for anthropogenic alterations of climate go much farther back. In fact, there is strong historical evidence that one of the major proponents of using climate change over global warming was Republican strategist Frank Luntz [see http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...ews_global_warming_versus_climate_change.html and https://thinkprogress.org/debunking...ge-vs-global-warming-95dbb3aa65e2#.uocltqdrq] because he felt that the term climate change was milder.
As currently used and dating from their appearance in the scientific literature, the terms "climate change" and "global warming" are shorthand for "anthropogenically-driven climate change" and "anthropogenically-driven global warming", neither of which would fit in a headline. Of course, the Earth's climate changes; 20,000 years ago Seattle was under a mile of ice as part of the last glacial maximum. However, the RATE that the climate is currently changing is unprecedented. The drivers of the rapid rate of change in atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, oceanic pH, and sea level are elevated levels of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, that have been liberated into the atmosphere and oceans by human activities.
Steve
 

psycho

Active Member
#25
I do my thing for climate change I grow a larger carbon sink every year. It is those useless teats in the major cities that require all their food to come from some where else that adds more to global warming than I will ever do. Just stop all the green house gas causing transportation of food into those cities to help the environment. In BC that is where all the whinning comes from as they eat their vegetarian diet brought in by diesel trucks. When they start to sacrifice a bit for their cause I may become a little more willing to listen to their message.
 

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
#27
Of course, the Earth's climate changes; 20,000 years ago Seattle was under a mile of ice as part of the last glacial maximum. However, the RATE that the climate is currently changing is unprecedented. The drivers of the rapid rate of change in atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, oceanic pH, and sea level are elevated levels of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, that have been liberated into the atmosphere and oceans by human activities.
How do you know that past history of climate change and the rate at which it happens is simply to be repeated? No one knows whether the changes we observe in more recent times, a nano-second in earths time, would have happened with or without us bi-peds having sprouted from the primordial stew.

Trying to pass off guesstimates as fact is certainly a method of perpetuating a storyline and promote an agenda, but it is a thin veneer and easily seen through by those not part of the ruse. Then there's the hypocrisy of those who preach this baloney and advocate change yet conduct themselves in a manner completely opposite.

Global Cooling, Global Warming, Man-made Weather, Climate Change... call it what you will, it stills smells the same.

Seems we both missed sensitivity training, Alex . . .
Not me. I attended and graduated magnum cum laude. You know that to be fact because I just told you so.
 

cabezon

Sculpin Enterprises
#28
How do you know that past history of climate change and the rate at which it happens is simply to be repeated? No one knows whether the changes we observe in more recent times, a nano-second in earths time, would have happened with or without us bi-peds having sprouted from the primordial stew.

Trying to pass off guesstimates as fact is certainly a method of perpetuating a storyline and promote an agenda, but it is a thin veneer and easily seen through by those not part of the ruse. Then there's the hypocrisy of those who preach this baloney and advocate change yet conduct themselves in a manner completely opposite.

Global Cooling, Global Warming, Man-made Weather, Climate Change... call it what you will, it stills smells the same.
Hence the term "denial". So happy you could play along with today's vocabulary exercise.
 

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
#29
Hence the term "denial". So happy you could play along with today's vocabulary exercise.
Yet another ploy of those perpetuating the charade... labeling those who do not adhere to the script. Careful, this tactic has been played out in past history and has sharp edges on both sides.
 

hbmcc

Active Member
#30
Thanks, Steve. Now, back to ... umm ... science.

Real. Science. Real ... science. Science. Anyone?

Dang! You know, it's really pissy that everything done in this society must be influenced (manipulated) by money, politics, religion, and just plain, obstinate stupidity.

I can't trust my institutions of higher learning to provide me with honest knowledge. They are muzzled, or self-muzzled, by donors with agendas that don't always fit with knowledgeable learning. One example struck me particularly hard. My alma mater. I receive a periodic news rag geared to soliciting donations. From my particular school at the U. I really enjoyed it. For about 30 years. It was actually disseminating information. Information, without the cheerful ra-ra of "aren't we great?" Well, there was that self applause, but it was supported by substance. Anyway, one issue focussed on grain, and delved deeper into specialty grains and breads. The particular article described artisanal breads as far better than run-of-the-mill all purpose flour. The next issue had a new staff and a slough of junk about nothing. And, 3 issues of advertising under one cover.

Testing in Private Labs for Alphabet Soup government departments approvals always had me suspicious. If my drug supplier, or competitor, was offering me free of charge--just show up--$40 to $80 dinners, and 12 months of no-copay, they had to be twiddling strings in the testing labs. Turns out, yes, they are. Lab A starts to find contrary data. The plug is pulled. Lab B does the same; and plug is pulled. There is a pattern developing. There are several testing labs working on the required analysis and procedures. At the same time. Of ten labs, two find supporting data. The other eight have been summarily excused shortly into analysis. Next drug test, the two yielding success are included in the panel of labs. And, my wife and I have several nice dinners for the cost of gas and, sometimes valet fees. Only in passing--gobsmacking--do we mention the $60,000 per month dosage fees charged to "insurance."

Not science. So, is the solution oversight? Undersight? Business as usual (BAU)? At this point BAU is the going game. And political (Robbers and Gifters) run the game with the general population stuck with the consequences. A good way to gag oversight is to underfund it. Conservatives champion that program. Liberals (progressives?) want to fund oversight; but probably concur with the conservatives. However, no one wants to cut the diseased philosophy of ethical abuse--or, selfish greed--from the body. The phantom dream of riches is everyone's common denominator so the solution, ruthless punishment for abuse against society, goes lonely, bloody and beaten through history.

Enough.
Bruce