Stark warning emerges from science summit

Feb 21, 2012 by Deborah Jones
A Nasa Earth Observatory image shows city lights. A stark theme emerged from an annual scientific get-together in Vancouver: the world must be helped to believe in science again or it could be too late to save our planet.

A stark theme emerged from an annual scientific get-together in Vancouver: the world must be helped to believe in science again or it could be too late to save our planet.

Science is "under siege," top academics and educators were warned repeatedly at the meeting as they were urged to better communicate their work to the public.

Scientific solutions are needed to solve global crises -- from food and water shortages to environmental destruction -- "but the public now does not understand science," leading US expert and NASA scientist James Hansen told the meeting.

"We have a planetary emergency, and very few people recognize that."

The theme of the five-day meeting, attended by some 8,000 scientists from 50 countries, was "Flattening the world: Building a global knowledge society."

"It's about persuading people to believe in science, at a time when disturbing numbers don't," said meeting co-chair Andrew Petter, president of Simon Fraser University in this western Canadian city.

Experts wrangled with thorny issues such as censorship, opposition from religious groups in the to and climate change, and generally poor education standards.

An Arctic fox hunts in Norway's Svalbard close to Ny-Aalesund, a former coal-mining settlement and the most northerly village in the world. It has become an International Centre of Research.

"We have to plan for a future, considering the risk of climate change, with nine to 10 billion people," said Hans Rosling, a Swedish public health expert famous for combating scientific ignorance with catchy YouTube videos.

Rosling, pointing to charts showing how changed with technology and how without science the majority of a family's children die, said it is naive to think that humanity can easily go backward in history.

"I get angry when I hear people say: 'In the rainforest people live in ecological balance.' They don't. They die in ," he said.

Outgoing AAAS president Nina Fedoroff, a renowned expert on life sciences and biotechnology, said a growing anti-science attitude "probably lies in our own psyche."

"Belief systems, especially when tinged with fear, are not easily dispersed with facts," she said, noting that in the United States "fewer people 'believe' in climate change each year."

Her remarks held particular resonance for the scientific community, coming as US President Barack Obama faces a fierce attack from a potential Republican challenger for the allegedly "phony theology" behind his environmental policy.

"I refer to global warming as not climate science, but political science," Christian conservative Rick Santorum, who is soaring ahead in the Republican race to take on Obama in November, said at a campaign stop Monday in Ohio.

Scientists have warned that Australia's Great Barrier Reef could be killed by global warming within decades.

Skepticism and denial of climate change still run strong in the United States, with polls showing a nation divided on the threat posed by global warming.

During the AAAS meeting, there was a new development abroad in the controversy over whether research by American and Dutch scientists on a mutant form of the bird flu virus -- which is potentially capable of spreading in humans -- should be made public.

Bird flu experts at the World Health Organization meeting in Geneva last week agreed that the controversial research should be made public at some time in the future after more risk analysis is done.

In the meantime, a moratorium on further studies has been extended.

Last year, American authorities asked scientists not to publish details of their research for fear the information could fall into the wrong hands and unleash a lethal flu pandemic.

"I would not be in favor of stopping the ," Fedoroff said in Vancouver. "The more we know about something, the better prepared we are to deal with unexpected outcomes."

Explore further: Russia turns back clocks to permanent Winter Time

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Scientists urged to spread word on global warming

Apr 12, 2005

Global warming is real, dangerous and ignored at great risk to the planet, a leading environmentalist told an audience of about 250 at last week's inaugural MIT Environmental Fellows Invitational Lecture. Professor James Gu ...

Scientists debate bird flu studies at WHO

Feb 16, 2012

Scientists met behind closed doors in Geneva Thursday to discuss whether controversial research on a mutant form of bird flu capable of being spread among humans can be made public.

US journal editor backs change to bird flu policy

Feb 17, 2012

The editor of the US journal Science said Friday he supports the decision of bird flu experts in Geneva to make public controversial research about a mutant form of the H5N1 virus. ...

US scientists to speak out on climate change

Nov 08, 2010

Hundreds of US scientists are joining a mass effort to speak out on climate change, experts said Monday after skeptics gained political ground with last week's Republican gains in Congress.

Recommended for you

Russia turns back clocks to permanent Winter Time

5 hours ago

Russia on Sunday is set to turn back its clocks to winter time permanently in a move backed by President Vladimir Putin, reversing a three-year experiment with non-stop summer time that proved highly unpopular.

Cloning whistle-blower: little change in S. Korea

Oct 24, 2014

The whistle-blower who exposed breakthrough cloning research as a devastating fake says South Korea is still dominated by the values that allowed science fraudster Hwang Woo-suk to become an almost untouchable ...

Color and texture matter most when it comes to tomatoes

Oct 21, 2014

A new study in the Journal of Food Science, published by the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), evaluated consumers' choice in fresh tomato selection and revealed which characteristics make the red fruit most appealing.

User comments : 114

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

_nigmatic10
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 21, 2012
It's not about belief in a system of thought defined as scientific, it is about understanding the world through those parameters without it being colored by the over-opinionated.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (26) Feb 21, 2012
Since anti-science agenda is almost exclusively embed-ed itself in the ideologies of Libertarianism, Randism, and Conservatism, it is clear who the enemy is.

It is also clear how this ignorant coalition of under-educated conservative non-thinkers and their corporate sponsors can be defeated.

Loud voices are needed.
Do your part.

dogbert
3.4 / 5 (21) Feb 21, 2012
Science is "under siege,"

Science is a methodology and process. It is not under siege and cannot be under siege. People like science and reap the benefits of science every day.
the public now does not understand science

The public today understands science just as well as they did in the past and probably a lot more because information is much more available today.
We have a planetary emergency, and very few people recognize that.

We do. That emergency is the uncontrolled population growth in China, India and many other countries. It is not a few tons of carbon dioxide.
Bird flu experts at the World Health Organization meeting in Geneva last week agreed that the controversial research should be made public at some time in the future

By all means. We need to create new weapons for radical extremists and we should not make them repeat our research to obtain those weapons.
I would not be in favor of stopping the science

Science is a process. Won't stop.
Kinedryl
1.2 / 5 (21) Feb 21, 2012
..the world must be helped to believe in science again or it could be too late to save our planet.
I'd rather say, the people should stop to believe the parasitic scientists, the cold fusion is impossible and start to press the politicians for the replacement of fossil fuels with it - or we would face the way worse things, then just global warming. We are suffering with financial crisis whereas the war with Iran is knocki'n on the doors and when other countries like the Israel or Russia will get involved, it could be the first nuclear one easily. These conflicts may become uncontrollable easily - just because we managed to ignore the cold fusion research for twenty years. Is it really what we want - or we are just paying for our delightful ignorance? So please, if you have some self-preservation instinct, stop with voting of all politicians, who have no effective support of cold fusion research in their program. It's your immediate interest.
AWaB
2.8 / 5 (12) Feb 21, 2012
Just some quick thoughts:

We can prove that the earth is over 6k years old. If someone doesn't want to believe it, that's fine. Who cares if people believe that it was through religion or a bang that the universe started. The answer is unimportant for day-to-day life. Attempting to find out is part of science and is important! Go CERN!

Global Warming (climate change, whatever it's called this week) was picking up followers and had exceeded the majority of people in the U.S. Then some scientists were found to be lying. Well, shame on them for screwing up their research. If you want to educate people, don't lie to them. It's their fault they lost the support.

Another post before this mine is dead on track. One of our biggest issues is population growth. We'd better start worrying about that a lot more or we'll save the climate and eat ourselves to death!
MR166
2.5 / 5 (29) Feb 21, 2012
"-- "but the public now does not understand science," leading US climate change expert and NASA scientist James Hansen told the meeting."

His biggest problem is that the public, despite a government owned media, knows full well how NASA falsified climate data in order to create a crisis. He is just a snake oil salesman bought and paid for by politicians and their business partners who want to take away your freedoms, savings and future.
deatopmg
2.1 / 5 (25) Feb 21, 2012
"Science is under siege" because of the behavior of highly politicized representatives, like the AAAS and the NAS, of academic researchers totally dependent upon government grants for their livelihoods. When a few intellectual members of these groups are caught lying, stealing, distorting, counter fitting (Gleick), manipulating (Hansen et al), and hiding data and methods (Mann, Trenberth, et al) paid for, and therefore owned by the public, that same public is going to/has become fed up with all science.

The blame for this can only lie with the inability of the AAAS (et al) to police their own to keep these zealots off the pages of "Science"...but (grant) money talks and the leaders of the AAAS want to keep that flowing copiously to their members. After 35 yrs I got fed up with the silly dogmas that have come to dominate and left.

@AWaB population growth is rapidly slowing in most of the non-medieval entranced nations as is elegantly illustrated by Rosling et al using Gapminder
MR166
4 / 5 (18) Feb 21, 2012
Kinedryl you seem to think that there is some sort of concerted effort to hamper cold fusion research. I think that the real problem is that most researchers have no idea how to begin to make this happen. The experiments of the few that have claimed success are not reproducible and there are not even any real theories of how cold fusion might even happen.

If Rossi has figured this out, God bless him but I will believe it when I see it.
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (21) Feb 21, 2012
"-- "but the public now does not understand science," leading US climate change expert and NASA scientist James Hansen told the meeting."

His biggest problem is that the public, despite a government owned media, knows full well how NASA falsified climate data in order to create a crisis. He is just a snake oil salesman bought and paid for by politicians and their business partners who want to take away your freedoms, savings and future.


All those doctored satelite photos, artificial retreat of the permafrost line (they just moved affected towns south so that it would appear the permafrost line had retreated north) tampering with global temperature measurements and doctored photos of glacial retreat really came back to bite NASA in the ass....

Your an idiot.
MR166
2.5 / 5 (24) Feb 21, 2012
Contrary to all the those wonderful computer simulations, satellite data confirms that there has been no appreciable warming for the past 10 years and the sea levels are stable to going down, not up. Hummm, catastrophic melting is occurring and the sea levels are constant. Now that is a worry, it looks like alien spacecrafts are stealing all of our water and we will soon be dry.
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (16) Feb 21, 2012
You have just proved my final statement. Well done.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (23) Feb 21, 2012
"the world must be helped to believe in science again "
That's what happens when scientists play with politicians.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (22) Feb 21, 2012
"Belief systems, especially when tinged with fear, are not easily dispersed with facts,"
Yes, like the belief in AGWite promoted fear.
When facts contradict the AGWite belief system, they become fearful.
DaFranker
3.3 / 5 (23) Feb 21, 2012
Contrary to all the those wonderful computer simulations, satellite data confirms that there has been no appreciable warming for the past 10 years and the sea levels are stable to going down, not up. Hummm, catastrophic melting is occurring and the sea levels are constant. Now that is a worry, it looks like alien spacecrafts are stealing all of our water and we will soon be dry.


Which satellite data? State your sources. Also, "sea levels" is a very poor measure of warming and ice-melting. Melting ice does not always cause rising tides immediately. There are too many factors that simply looking at the water depth does not take into account, not the least of which are pressure and density.

Also, it's not just computer simulation. Weather measurements worldwide, when averaged, are rising year by year. That's surface and airborne measurements both. The same measurements that tell you how warm it is outside your house today. How's that for "real" and "visible"?
MR166
1.9 / 5 (18) Feb 21, 2012
http://wattsupwit...ictions/

http://wattsupwit...-part-1/

None of the computer simulations predicted anything close to this so of what value are they?
MR166
2.2 / 5 (20) Feb 21, 2012
So pressure changes the sea level eh. I thought that water was not compressible. Perhaps physics has changed since I studied it.
rubberman
3.4 / 5 (23) Feb 21, 2012
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/14/sea-level-still-not-cooperating-with-predictions/

None of the computer simulations predicted anything close to this so of what value are they?


Watts' personal opinion page isn't a credible data source, this has been further verified by the heartland fiasco. Perhaps you have a relative with a website you could link, that would carry more weight....
With regards to your statement about no appreciable temperature rise in the last 10 years. The 10 warmest years on a global scale since "modern" record keeping began have all occurred since 1998. So your no appreciable rise is essentially a plateau at what WAS considered an extreme outlier year when it happened. These occurred during an extended solar minimum. It (earth) will continue to warm as a whole and continue to be punctuated by increased seasonal extremes, this is based on non tainted observational data....not Wattsupwithat
Just_some_guy
3.5 / 5 (16) Feb 21, 2012
Contrary to all the those wonderful computer simulations, satellite data confirms that there has been no appreciable warming for the past 10 years and the sea levels are stable to going down, not up. Hummm, catastrophic melting is occurring and the sea levels are constant. Now that is a worry, it looks like alien spacecrafts are stealing all of our water and we will soon be dry.

You know, just because you say so on a forum does not make it the least bit true.
StarGazer2011
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 21, 2012
Hansen is just trying to conflate things again, to hide the decline of support for his pet theory. The public understand science better than ever, Hansen doesnt understand the difference between scientific enquiry and post-normal rent-seeking, luckily the public does, and science is winning out over nonsensical CAGW curve fitting and propoganda.
The best thing which could happen for science is for Hansen and his ilk to start calling themselves activists rather than scientists.
StarGazer2011
2.3 / 5 (15) Feb 21, 2012
It was warmer in the MWP which the post-normalists tried to deny existed and was likely global. It has been warmer many times in the last 12000 years since the end of the last ice age. This 1880 stuff is pure propoganda, there is nothing special about 1880 except that it suits cherry pickers.
3432682
2.6 / 5 (17) Feb 21, 2012
"Science is "under siege," top academics and educators were warned "

No. It isn't. Next case. BTW, stop lying to us.
StarGazer2011
2.3 / 5 (18) Feb 21, 2012
And further the claim that the last decade was warmest since 1880 (or whenever) misses the point that according the CAGW theory temperature and CO2 are linked, and the CO2 has definately been going up but the temperature hasnt. Thats the crux, the theory has failed and continutes to fail and should be discarded. It turns out it wasnt causation, it was just correlation.
Jotaf
3.6 / 5 (14) Feb 21, 2012
"the world must be helped to believe in science again"

Oh, for a minute there I thought a majority of the world population didn't believe in science. Turns out it's only a problem in a certain crackpot-ridden country... No cause for alarm.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (21) Feb 21, 2012
"the world must be helped to believe in science again"

Oh, for a minute there I thought a majority of the world population didn't believe in science. Turns out it's only a problem in a certain crackpot-ridden country... No cause for alarm.

How is the 'science' of socialism working out around in the world? Popper was motivated to falsification by the continuous failures of Marxism to predict and the predictive success of Einstein.
RazorsEdge
3 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2012
Cognitive dissonance at the summit: They dread seeing the world population reach 9 billion yet they want to maximize the number who reach reproductive age.
Deathclock
4.1 / 5 (13) Feb 21, 2012
Why do I get the feeling that the first 5 or so commentators are all the same person?

I get this feeling in a lot of these comment threads, that of the dozen to two dozen people commenting there are only 4-6 actual humans behind the screens...
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 21, 2012
"there has been no appreciable warming for the past 10 years" - MR166

10 year long periods are not sufficiently long to determine a climate trend.

Climate is defined over periods of 20 years or more.

Further, when known drivers like the solar output are removed from the temperature data, the result shows a continued rise in temperature due to CO2 levels.

In other words, there are known effects that will not persist that are keeping temperatures artificially cool.
CardacianNeverid
3 / 5 (12) Feb 22, 2012
...she said, noting that in the United States "fewer people 'believe' in climate change each year".

The problem word is 'belief'. Just watch what happens if that bible thumping nutjob Santorum wins the next election! Be very afraid.
ohno
1 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2012
"It's about persuading people to believe in science[...]"

Its not, sorry.

Im disapointet from this "annual scientific get-together", i think just like so many people out there they dont see the root of the problem(very depressing for me i have to say), its not science that people do not believe in its their fellow humans they dont believe in!

People believe in some god or money sometimes they dont even believe in anything. Worst of all is: most of them dont believe in them selfs.... always thinking thats they cant do this or that.

Nobody can get people to believe in science before they believe in people.

A shame this is just a comment section and none of the people from that meeting will see it ;(
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 22, 2012
Clearly there is no such thing as birth control.

"They dread seeing the world population reach 9 billion yet they want to maximize the number who reach reproductive age."
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
"its not science that people do not believe in its their fellow humans they dont believe in!" - ohno

Well. When you are a NeoConservative, low life, money grubber, and you live with other low life, money grubbers, you anticipate that everyone must be an untrustworthy piece of filth, just like yourself.

I see it all the time.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2012
"Just watch what happens if that bible thumping nutjob Santorum wins the next election!" - Carcadian

Americans generally shun religious whack tards during federal elections.

Romey will represent America's Republican cancer.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (16) Feb 22, 2012
...she said, noting that in the United States "fewer people 'believe' in climate change each year".

The problem word is 'belief'. Just watch what happens if that bible thumping nutjob Santorum wins the next election! Be very afraid.

You think the Bible thumping Obama is better? He bragged about attending church for 20 years and recently said he wanted an economic plan based upon the teachings of Jesus.
Oh, wait, Obama is a 'liberal' and lying about his 'faith' to get elected.
CardacianNeverid
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 22, 2012
You think the Bible thumping Obama is better? - RygTard

Do I think Obama is better? Most definitely.

He bragged about attending church for 20 years and recently said he wanted an economic plan based upon the teachings of Jesus.
Oh, wait, Obama is a 'liberal' and lying about his 'faith' to get elected - RygTard

Unfortunately you have to pretend to be religious (under the right kind of god) to be electable in the American Theocracy.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Feb 22, 2012
You think the Bible thumping Obama is better? - RygTard

Do I think Obama is better? Most definitely.

He bragged about attending church for 20 years and recently said he wanted an economic plan based upon the teachings of Jesus.
Oh, wait, Obama is a 'liberal' and lying about his 'faith' to get elected - RygTard

Unfortunately you have to pretend to be religious (under the right kind of god) to be electable in the American Theocracy.

So you acknowledge Obama lies.
What does he NOT lie about?
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 22, 2012
The problem is not so much that people (in the US, and ONLY in the US) don't understand science. People don't really need to understand science (otherwise everyone would/could be a scientist).
The real problem is that people (in the US) don't TRUST science.

The bizarre thing is that this distrust has ben sown by people whom the public KNOWS to not be trustworty.

False rumor beats facts every time.

Oh, for a minute there I thought a majority of the world population didn't believe in science. Turns out it's only a problem in a certain crackpot-ridden country... No cause for alarm.

If that country is the major source of the problem the scientists are alarmed about then it is cause for alarm. We must help Americans get educated or suffer the worldwide consequences.
COCO
1 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2012
I think there may be a wee bit of an overeaction here - remember that science showed that WTC 7 was felled by fire and not by aliens - there are glimmers of truth that we can hold on to today.
RazorsEdge
4 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2012
theAtlantic.com on Gleick

Gleick has done enormous damage to his cause and his own reputation, and it's no good to say that people shouldn't be focusing on it. If his judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science? For that matter, what about the judgement of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions?

When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths--including lying--to advance their worldview, I'd say one of the movement's top priorities should be not proving them right. And if one rogue member of the community does something crazy that provides such proof, I'd say it is crucial that the other members of the community say "Oh, how horrible, this is so far beyond the pale that I cannot imagine how this ever could have happened!" and not, "Well, he's apologized and I really think it's pretty crude and opportunistic to make a fuss about something that's so unimportan
RazorsEdge
5 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2012
theatlantic.com (Gleick)

After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you've lost the power to convince them of anything else

http://www.theatl.../253395/
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
"How is the 'science' of socialism working out around in the world?" - RyggTard

Pretty well. Meanwhile America is completely bankrupt and continues on it's rapid collapse as the world abandons American style Capitalism as the failure that it is.
Jotaf
4 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2012
How is the 'science' of socialism working out around in the world?


What a great way to miss the point. Science is not just another camp in the eternal field of political confrontation. Except maybe in the minds of a few people who think everything is relative and facts must bow to public opinion, and who don't understand the concept of quantifying uncertainty.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 22, 2012
Science is not just another camp in the eternal field of political confrontation.

It is when the scientists depend upon govt funding and lobby for govt funding.
CardacianNeverid
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2012
Science is not just another camp in the eternal field of political confrontation

It is when the scientists depend upon govt funding and lobby for govt funding - TardOfTards

Right, coz governments are evil and should be abolished so that every man can fend for himself, armed to the gills with Kalashnikovs and living in the Wild West ruled by unconstrained oligarchs and cartels. Seek help.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2012
It is when the scientists depend upon govt funding and lobby for govt funding.

You don't seem to understand that scientists get payed the same - no matter whethe they get a million or a billion in funding. It's not a system where scientists give each other raises (and/or bonuses). The only bonus you could possible, ever, get a s a scientist is the Nobel prize money.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Feb 23, 2012
It is when the scientists depend upon govt funding and lobby for govt funding.

You don't seem to understand that scientists get payed the same - no matter whethe they get a million or a billion in funding. It's not a system where scientists give each other raises (and/or bonuses). The only bonus you could possible, ever, get a s a scientist is the Nobel prize money.

Tenure.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2012
Tenure is for life (usually). The researcher doesn't feel it personally (in his paycheck) whether he gets a lot of money, very little, or none at all from grants. The only thing it allows him to do is employ more PhD students or buy better equipment (i.e. the only benefit of more grant money is that he can have more research done).

There's no personal benefit involved and thus no selfish motivation.
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2012
Tenure is for life (usually). The researcher doesn't feel it personally (in his paycheck) whether he gets a lot of money, very little, or none at all from grants. The only thing it allows him to do is employ more PhD students or buy better equipment (i.e. the only benefit of more grant money is that he can have more research done).

There's no personal benefit involved and thus no selfish motivation.


The methodology of a true scientist, work with multi-million dollar equipment all day, then catch the bus home....not the type heartland is looking for...
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 23, 2012
Tenure is for life (usually). The researcher doesn't feel it personally (in his paycheck) whether he gets a lot of money, very little, or none at all from grants. The only thing it allows him to do is employ more PhD students or buy better equipment (i.e. the only benefit of more grant money is that he can have more research done).

There's no personal benefit involved and thus no selfish motivation.

Is that why a biology professor murdered several colleagues in AL when denied tenure? No personal benefit?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2012
"Gleick wasn't just an obscure, rogue operator in the climate debate. Before his exposure, his stock in trade was lecturing on "scientific integrity," and until a few days ago he was the chairman of the American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Ethics. So this scandal goes to the very top of the global warming establishment, and it compels honest observers to ask: if the warmists were willing to deceive us on this, what else have they been deceiving us about?"
http://www.realcl...225.html
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2012
"Gleick wasn't just an obscure, rogue operator in the climate debate. Before his exposure, his stock in trade was lecturing on "scientific integrity," and until a few days ago he was the chairman of the American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Ethics. So this scandal goes to the very top of the global warming establishment, and it compels honest observers to ask: if the warmists were willing to deceive us on this, what else have they been deceiving us about?"


So one guy pertends to be someone he isn't in order to obtain information from the legion of doom and you now have him:
(A) Speaking and acting on behalf of all the "warmists"
(B) King of the global warming establishment
(C) Apparently involved in other conspiracies....
(D) having a "Tiger Woodsesque"fall from grace

So because of his actions 97% of the climate scientists are dishonest...and apparently all biology professors are murderous savages when they become unemployed....seek help Rygg.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2012
Is that why a biology professor murdered several colleagues in AL when denied tenure? No personal benefit?

This is supposed to make some kind of point? Does that somehow support the notion that scientists are in it for the money? You're really out of your depth, here. I don't know where you get your knowledge about the lifestyle of scientists from. It seems like saturday morning cartoons or FOX news (which basically amounts to the same thing)

As a scientist I made FAR less money than I do now (working for a company). I'm earning about 200% more since I switched. And that is AFTER taxes of which I pay A LOT more as a percentage of my income since then (42% vs. 21%).

As a scientist my income wasn't open for negotioation, no matter how many projects or industry partners (read: third party investors) or government grants I had at any one time. It was fixed (and fixed to go up after a certain amount of time - but still in a MUCH more modest way than is usual in the private sector
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2012
"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan (A Libertarian) needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." - Paul Krugman - "Dubya's Double Dip?", The New York Times, 2 August 2002

"Is that why a biology professor murdered several colleagues in AL when denied tenure?" - RyggTard
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 24, 2012
I'm earning about 200% more since I switched.

Good for you.
For the scientist, it appears having their egos stroked is the most important reward: papers published, professorships, etc.
In the business world, a engineer with a bachelor's degree can climb the ladder, earn more and even lead a team of PhDs.
I respect the individual and how the individual measures his rewards is his business. But don't try and tell me scientists are pure in heart because they are not 'in it for the money'.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2012
But don't try and tell me scientists are pure in heart because they are not 'in it for the money'.

That's EXACTLY what I'm telling you.

Every scientist knows that he could make much more money in the private sector. And every scientist knows that it would just take a few hours to get a job there (qualified people are a sought after addition to any company. Especially if they come with a title - which is worth it's weight in gold when it comes to customer relations)

To remain a scientist you have to have a hefty dose of idealism (i.e. you have to really believe that job satisfaction is vastly more important than money).

Respect from peers is nice, but you can get that in the private sector, too. That's no reason to stay a scientist.
And when all is said and done: Respect doesn't give you one iota of advanced credibility for your next paper. Only the content of the paper does that. Each new paper is the one you are judged by.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2012
Only the content of the paper does that. Each new paper is the one you are judged by.


Not if you are an AGW climate scientist who is judge by a group of like minded individuals.

One thing I have noticed about professional organization like a medical association or a legal association, they tend to cover for each other.

Journals are only as good as the degree of independence of their review process and reviewers.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2012
Not if you are an AGW climate scientist who is judge by a group of like minded individuals.

You're always judged by your peers. The quality of your work is what's important (The judges and editors have as much to lose by letting an inaccurate paper into a journal as the author for submitting it). So reputation doesn't help one bit (actually it plays no part, since the reviewers don't know who the author is - but this has been explained to you a dozen times already and you wont remember it this time, either)

One thing I have noticed about professional organization like a medical association or a legal association, they tend to cover for each other.

They're out to make a buck. Scientists aren't. Big difference.

Journals are only as good as the degree of independence of their review process and reviewers.

Can't get more independent than it currently is. Reviewers get no pay and aren't affiliated with the journal they review for.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2012
he quality of your work is what's important

And one's political POV, now.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2012
You keepn alleging that. But I can see nowhere where this is true.

Repeating a lie does not make it truth.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2012
You keepn alleging that. But I can see nowhere where this is true.

Repeating a lie does not make it truth.

You are not looking in the right places.
climateaudit.org is one place.

Another:
"But what's not run-of -the-sty is a 1998 letter, signed by Enron's then-CEO Ken Lay (and a few other bigwigs), asking President Clinton, in essence, to harm the reputations and credibility of scientists who argued that global warming was an overblown issue. Apparently they were standing in Enron's way.

The letter, dated Sept. 1, asked the president to shut off the public scientific debate on global warming, which continues to this date. In particular, it requested Clinton to "moderate the political aspects" of this discussion by appointing a bipartisan "Blue Ribbon Commission.""
http://www.cato.o..._id=3388
Jotaf
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2012
ryggesogn2, climate is only a political debate in the USA. In the rest of the world they trust scientists.

By the way, unlike the sell-outs at those institutes you often quote, we don't get paid based on the conclusions of our work. You wouldn't know that because you either work in a company or are retired, in a company the goals are very different.

The most important phrase in science is "That's odd...", not "Eureka!". If there were any obvious flaws in the climate data analysis, scientists would be all over it, because everyone wants to be the one who makes a significant contribution. See physics, with everyone trying to be the one who disproves Einstein.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2012
In the rest of the world they trust scientists.

Why?

BTW, the world once trusted the scientists promoting eugenics.

"Why did the self-correcting nature of science not bring the fraud to light sooner? Some of it is that there are bad scientists, just like in any other occupation, and they are drawn to money and silliness, and some of it is that peer-reviewed journals were not doing their jobs. "
http://www.scienc..._himself
"Earlier this year Dr Hwang's apparently ground-breaking work, such as producing stem cell lines from cloned human embryos, was found to be fake. "
http://news.bbc.c...3973.stm
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2012
everyone wants to be the one who makes a significant contribution.

"The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible. He then set about discrediting the theory"
"CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate science wont yet permit a celebration of the find."
http://opinion.fi...settled/
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2012
Why?

Because they are the smartest people without a personal agenda.

...as has been explained to you numerous times.

It is not sensible to either trust dumb people (like yourself) or people with a personal agenda (like the Heartland institute)
Calenur
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2012
ryggesogn2, why do you even come to a science website if you have such contempt for scientists?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2012
ryggesogn2, why do you even come to a science website if you have such contempt for scientists?

I don't have contempt.
I don't agree they are morally superior as anti and others assert. They lie, cheat and steal for the same reasons anyone does, personal gain (money, prestige, honor, ...).
The world is expected to believe them and trust them based upon their peer review process and their education. How does one earn a PhD in a filed? Pass coursework and conduct research a few other PhDs in the university approve of. Not very objective.

Because they are the smartest people without a personal agenda.
So you assert.
Data does not support your faith.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2012
the smartest people without a personal agenda.
?
"Fritz Vahrenholt, 62, who holds a doctorate in chemistry, has been a rebel throughout his life. "Perhaps it's just part of my generation," he says."
""The climate catastrophe is not occurring," he writes in his book "Die Kalte Sonne" (The Cold Sun), "
"In my experience as an energy expert, I learned that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is more of a political than a scientific body. As a rapporteur on renewable energy, I witnessed how thin the factual basis is for predictions that are made at the IPCC. In one case, a Greenpeace activist's absurd claim that 80 percent of the world's energy supply could soon be coming from renewable sources was assumed without scrutiny. This prompted me to examine the IPCC report more carefully."
http://www.spiege...,00.html
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2012
"SPIEGEL: So your contention that we are wrong about global warming is merely a provocation?

Vahrenholt: No. I mean it very seriously, and I know that dozens of solar researchers agree with me. I am perfectly aware of the defamation I will have to listen to in the near future. The climate debate also has some of the trappings of an inquisition. I'm curious to see which truth ministry will now initiate proceedings against me. Perhaps it'll be the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, which is headed by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, an adviser to the chancellor."
"I am critical of the role played by the handful of lead authors who take on the final editing of the report. They claim that they are using 18,000 publications evaluated by their peers. But 5,000 of them are so-called gray literature, which are not peer-reviewed sources. These mistakes come out in the end, just like the absurd claim that there will no longer be any glaciers in the Himalayas in 30 years. "
Same source.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2012
Fritz has a personal agenda.
I guess he is stupid in spite of his PhD.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2012
How does one earn a PhD in a filed? Pass coursework and conduct research a few other PhDs in the university approve of

You have a better idea how this should be done? Let's hear it (reviewers come from outside the institution, too, BTW).

Or don't you think scientific work should be judged by people able to understand it?

They lie, cheat and steal for the same reasons anyone does, personal gain (money, prestige, honor, ...).

Don't project your own character on others. Not everyone is like you.

In one case, a Greenpeace activist's absurd claim that 80 percent

Activist does not equal scientist.

Fritz has a personal agenda.

You are aware that he's been on the board of directors of big oil (Shell) in charge of putting a positive spin on sinking the Brent Spar oil platform?That he's currently working for RWE (largest coal and nuclear energy provider in germany).
Not exactly a scientist - and hasn't been for decades.
Jotaf
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
Rygg, you can attack the political bodies like the IPCC all you want, but the science? Really?!

Also -- you have no idea what it's like to get a PhD. It's not just hard work, it's not just taking some classes, you actually have to advance science in a meaningful way. You have to prove something that no one else knew before you.

You wouldn't last a day in a PhD program, and you're just jealous of the real scientists who actually have a cool job instead of being grumpy all day.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2012
you actually have to advance science in a meaningful way.

Who decides you have advanced science in a 'meaningful' way?

Not exactly a scientist - and hasn't been for decades.

He earned his PhD like everyone else did he not?
He had to have advanced science in some 'meaningful' way to do so as I am told.
Is Jim Hansen a real scientist for being a NASA administrator? How much time does have have for research?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2012
Has Freeman Dyson advanced science in a meaningful way?
He doesn't have a PhD and doesn't want one.

"Dyson: Yes. There is this snobbism among scientists, especially the academic types."
"Dyson: There are scientists in industry who are a bit more broad minded. The academics look down on them, too."
"Dyson: Its even worse in Germany. Intellectual snobbery is a worldwide disease. It certainly was very bad in China and probably held back development there by 2,000 years.

Brand: How would you stop this intellectual snobbery?

Dyson: I would abolish the PhD system. The PhD system is the real root of the evil of academic snobbery. People who have PhDs consider themselves a priesthood, and inventors generally dont have PhDs. "
http://michaelnie...nd-phds/

Looks like Dyson has contempt for scientists.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2012
"Are those getting PhDs rewarded in any other way than as an honor?

It's much more than an honor. It's a ticket to a job.

So is anybody buying this? Are PhDs being abolished or disregarded?

No. The stranglehold has gotten even tighter over the years. It's become essentially like the MD - with much less justification. It's simply a barrier you have to climb over before you can make a career, and it's being imposed on more and more jobs. At even the smallest liberal arts college, nowadays, they say with pride, "All of our faculty have PhDs." Many of the best teachers are thrown out because they don't have a PhD. It's a paper qualification that poisons the whole field. "
""Oh, no, Daddy, you don't understand. You don't come to Harvard to study. You come to Harvard to get to know the right people." "
http://www.wired....p;topic=
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
Who decides you have advanced science in a 'meaningful' way?

The ones who test you at the end. Their reputation rides on this, too. If they pass just anybody for anything then that falls back on them (over here the professors of a law university are in BIG trouble because they gave a PhD to a member of parliament some years back - and it turns out that most of his work was plagiarized. Those professors and that university are pretty much done for.)

Is Jim Hansen a real scientist for being a NASA administrator? How much time does have have for research?

as an administrator he's not a scientist. PhD doesn't equal scientist. (E.g. I have one but I am curently not a scientist anymore because I do no active research - at least not in an official capacity)
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
Getting a PhD is a tough time. It's years of long hours, weekends, nights, minimal pay...and you're not even assured success. It's a gamble on your own intellect and abilities.
And in the end - if you succeed - you have actually advanced the human knowledge base.
Certainly I think such an investment and such an achievement should be rewarded in some way, don't you think?

It's become essentially like the MD - with much less justification

To be honest: the MD is a joke.
Six months of statistical analysis and you have it. No brainpower required at all. The effort is the equivalent of doing a masters thesis (even less than that - we were required to do meaningful research work in our masters thesis, too!).

inventors generally dont have PhDs

So? Who says they have to. You can do good work (and even research) without a PhD.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2012
Certainly I think such an investment and such an achievement should be rewarded in some way, don't you think?

You get to hang a diploma on the wall and have the title of Herr Dr.
That is not sufficient reward? After all, you are not in it for the money.
You expect society should pay you a stipend for the rest of your life for such a feat?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2012
"You get to hang a diploma on the wall and have the title of Herr Dr. That is not sufficient reward?" - RyggTard

To the myopic Libertarian/Randite mind, there is nothing in life but treasure and theft.

In the real world of course, people are motivated by a wide variety of things, and in the case of PHD's it is earned access to the the services of the University setting, peers, journals, etc.

antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2012
You get to hang a diploma on the wall and have the title of Herr Dr.
That is not sufficient reward?

Yes it is. That's the point. You wanted to abolish the PhD system - remember? Giving people who slaved over advances for mankind no recognition for it whatsoever.

(Note: I have opted not to add the "Dr." to my name. Doing so is not mandatory).
whether you get more money also depends on what type of job you go into. My current job doesn't pay any better just because I hold a PhD (I get the same as anyone else in similar capacity).

Certainly it looks good on your resume. Tells your employer that you are able to be self motivated and do scientific/development work with the best of them - the latter depending on what kind of qualifier you got with your PhD. (rite, cum laude, magna cum laude, summa cum laude, maxima cum laude)
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2012
slaved over advances for mankind

This is the bull***t part I don't buy.
You do it for yourself, your ego, not for 'mankind'.
That's why I don't buy using the basis of 'nobility' of govt funded scientists as rationale for their veracity.
Jotaf
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2012
Ryggesogn2, it's great that you can just *know* what motivates all scientists in the world. It's just the meaning of our lives, but w'ever, right? It must be really sad to live in a world where everyone is so egocentric and predictable. No higher purpose, no meaning of life. Just a bunch of bastards on an ego and power trip.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
This is the bull***t part I don't buy.
You do it for yourself, your ego, not for 'mankind'.

My particular motivation was reallly that dream I had since I was a kid: make a contribution - however small. Something that would be recorded and could not be overturned, even if it was only in some obscure book. Yes. I fulfilled my childhood dream. If that's pure egotism to you - fine.

But you are not, and have never been, a scientist. You just have no clue what makes one or what the mindset is you need to have to become one.
It certainly isn't the money. For people with that level of intelligence there are FAR easier and quicker avenues to take if they just wanted to make a buck. Notice how there's not a single millionaire scientist? What do you think? We*re hypersmart, but when it comes to making money we're suddenly dumb as rocks?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2012
Notice how there's not a single millionaire scientist?


There are many scientists who have made millions. Here is one:

"Greg received a BS Physics (1966), a BSEE and MS Physics (1968) from Fairleigh Dickinson University, then was awarded a Ph.D. in Materials Science from the University of Virginia (1971). He performed post-doctoral studies at the University of Port Elizabeth (South Africa), taught elementary physics classes, and then worked as a research scientist at RCA Labs (Sarnoff Center) from 1972 to 1983."
http://ghoventure...bio.aspx

Scientists can become wealthy and so can those who did not complete high school, like Henry Ford.

Gene Amdahl is another millionaire scientist.

Gunther von Hagens, another.

Without much effort is was quite easy to find three millionaire scientists. Three more than you asserted.
I am sure is would be quite easy to find hundreds more around the world.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2012
Ryggesogn2, it's great that you can just *know* what motivates all scientists in the world. It's just the meaning of our lives, but w'ever, right? It must be really sad to live in a world where everyone is so egocentric and predictable. No higher purpose, no meaning of life. Just a bunch of bastards on an ego and power trip.

You claim to know what motivates all scientists.
You claim scientists only want to contribute to mankind so their research is beyond reproach and must be trusted.
Bull!
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2012
These are the people that must really piss of anti and jo:
"Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Sir Richard Branson are self-made entrepreneurs who earned millions (and later billions) without earning college degrees. So who are the next great college dropouts to watch?"
http://smallbusin...ropouts/

ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2012
"the more conservatively inclined man of first class ability will in general choose intellectual work (and the sacrifice in material reward which this choice usually entails) only if he enjoys it for its own sake. He is in consequence more likely to become an expert scholar rather than an intellectual in the specific sense of the word; while to the more radically minded the intellectual pursuit is more often than not a means rather than an end, a path to exactly that kind of wide influence which the professional intellectual exercises. It is
therefore probably the fact, not that the more intelligent people are generally socialists, but that a much higher proportion of socialists among the best minds devote themselves to those intellectual pursuits which in modern society give them a decisive influence on public opinion."
http://mises.org/...uals.pdf
Hayek understood.
Jotaf
3 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2012
You're just looking for confirmation for your life choices. That's fine, I (humbly) look up to the best scientists in History as inspiration so I guess I'm looking for confirmation too. Just don't label a whole profession that has given you so much all "for the sake of the team" as a bunch of hypocrites to make you look better in the picture.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2012
You're just looking for confirmation for your life choices.

No, I am not.
I don't accept the 'research' of scientists at face value simply on the basis they were motivated to help mankind.

animah
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2012
I don't accept the 'research' of scientists at face value simply on the basis they were motivated to help mankind.


Wait, what? Of course you shouldn't - certainly no scientist does. You should accept or refuse the research of scientists on the basis of rational enquiry.

But this means learning formal logic and the context of thought in the subjects you want to understand. The enlightened amateur, citizen scientist, whatever you call laymen who take this stuff humbly and seriously, has nothing to apologise for.

Somehow you seem to want to be one, but continuously make ignorant rants with authoritavive finality. So don't complain if everyone here thinks you're a wanker.
animah
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
ryggesogn2 on Freeman Dyson


Thank you for citing one of the great heroes of science.

Weird how this man of superlative intelligence is a convinced liberal who publicly supports Obama :-)
Short bloke
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2012
Antialias Physorg. Congratulations on your defence of the Ph.D and for achieving one yourself. However I think if you truly understand physics, you would be aware that some of the concepts now popularly advocated and researched today are not taking the conservation of energy law into account; for instance research based on the concept that gravitation is an illusion and results from the warping of space. Black holes, dark matter, dark energy, multi universes etceteras are all postulated to account for anomalies that remain so from lack of understanding. There is mostly productive science being undertaken, but that of climate suffers from too much political involvement and pressures.
CardacianNeverid
3 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2012
...some of the concepts now popularly advocated and researched today are not taking the conservation of energy law into account; for instance research based on the concept that gravitation is an illusion and results from the warping of space. Black holes, dark matter, dark energy, multi universes etceteras are all postulated to account for anomalies that remain so from lack of understanding. There is mostly productive science being undertaken, but that of climate suffers from too much political involvement and pressures -ShortStroke

Meaningless word salad.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2012
ryggesogn2 on Freeman Dyson


Thank you for citing one of the great heroes of science.

Weird how this man of superlative intelligence is a convinced liberal who publicly supports Obama :-)

No one is perfect.

but continuously make ignorant rants with authoritavive finality.

I guess you are the authority on final ignorant rants.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012

Scientists can become wealthy

Notice how all the ones you cited became wealthy after they funded their own companies or went to work for big companies?
NOT those you accuse of siphoning money (those that get government grants to do research)
You are so way off base in your line of arguments that you're playing on a different planet.

Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Sir Richard Branson are self-made entrepreneurs who earned millions (and later billions) without earning college degrees.

Good for them. Since money isn't part of my life's goals (other than to have an appartment, food, pay my bills and insurances and basically not having to worry about stuff at all) why should these people be a problem to me? I don't envy (nor admire) them in the least. The things that are important to them aren't important to me (and probably vice versa)
djr
4 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2012
"Every scientist knows that he could make much more money in the private sector." Antialias - aren't we letting rygg push us into a false debate? Where is the line between a scientist, and an engineer? Surely many pure scientists (researchers in universities for eg.) take their research, patent it, and try to use it in the business arena. Rygg seems to have a problem with the fundamental process of science - ie the empirical exploration of reality. He seems to see a grand conspiracy - he brings up socialism in almost every debate. Why does he spam Physorg - a site dedicated to the advancement of science - with his paranoia? I think it reflects a fear of the changes happening in our world - the movement towards a science based - secular world. Scientists should not be ashamed of their credentials, or their success in business if that is where they choose to go. Either way they are advancing the progress of the human race.
baudrunner
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2012
"It's about persuading people to believe in science, at a time when disturbing numbers don't,"


Science isn't about religion. Religion is the opiate of the masses, as Freud said. Science is practical and real, and that scares a lot of ignorant people. Religion is bogus, and based on interpretations of events not understandable by early man. Science created the "gods", because that's how they got here. Read the second paragraph in the account of the flood and the tower of Babel in the New English King James bible. I mean, the proto civilisation of over ten thousand years ago actually tried to build a tower to the heavens. And some people today want to retain the kind of mindset that planned that construction project in the name of religion. That, my friends, is ignorance.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2012
Rygg seems to have a problem with the fundamental process of science

No, I don't.
But many 'scientists' seem to have a problem with the fundamental process.
We are told by 'scientists' humans ARE the only cause of any global climate change and they, the high priests of science, must be heeded. No debate or dissent is allowed, even among their colleagues.
There are scientists who are trying to understand the how the universe came into existence, how life began, but many of their colleagues are not allowed to explore all theories.
Popper was inspired by the Marists who used ad hoc hypotheses to save their theory and by Einstein who did not.
Yet there are many who claim to be scientists here who support socialism in spite of its failures to deliver on its theories.
The things that are important to them aren't important to me

Fine with me. And I am not impressed by any claims of virtue for your not pursuing wealth, which AGWites try to do.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2012
Scientists should not be ashamed of their credentials, or their success in business if that is where they choose to go. Either way they are advancing the progress of the human race.

And so are millions of others.
To reiterate, I am not impressed or persuaded by those 'scientists' who claim or assert their research has more merit because they chose to 'sacrifice' in university and not seek 'wealth' in industry.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2012
"Rygg seems to have a problem with the fundamental process of science"

"No, I don't."

Then why would you ask this question? -

"In the rest of the world they trust scientists."

"Why?"

Scientists represent the process of science. Are all of them honest? of course not! but the basic process is sound. If you don't trust scientists - why do spend your time on a board - that reports the findings of scientists? Perhaps because you have a political agenda - rather than a sincere interest in science!
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2012
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Max Planck "
If what you say about scientists is true, why did Planck make this statement?
why do spend your time on a board - that reports the findings of scientists?

Maybe political scientists. Much of what is reported here has significant political spin. Mostly socialist spin.
What I find that makes science great is that a single individual, not the consensus, can make a significant insight and change the world.
But too often, the consensus conspires to suppress such individual discoveries.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2012
"normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments"
Research is "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education"
http://des.emory....uhn.html
djr
4 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2012
"Maybe political scientists" Again - why do u frequent a board that presents scientific research - if you have such a low view of science? Are u on some kind of crusade to discredit science? Yes - our world can be very conservative - and resistant to change. I find science to be one of the most open fields - in terms of encouraging change (try working for State Gvt.). Shit - the church is 1,000 times worse in terms of resistance to change. I looked over your Kuhn article. Don't u think ur above quote is very interesting - coming from a very main stream university? What paradigm would u say we are currently in? What paradigm do you feel u understand - that allows u to be so consistently critical of mainstream science? Where did u acquire this paradigm?
rwinners
5 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2012
I wish I could impress the American population of this fact.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2012
The first step to recovery is to identify the problem. That is the scientific-govt-media complex is not trusted.
The next step is to ask your selves why.
Could it be that every week some new study claims eggs are good for you and then next week they are bad and the week after they are good again?
Every scientists should read and understand the fable about the boy who cried wolf.
One step on the road to recovery, to be trusted, is to honestly admit what you think you know and admit what is not really well understood.
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2012
It is interesting that u dont answer the questions that are directly posed to you! If you dont trust scientists - why do u frequent a board that reports the results of scientists? I trust the process of science. It is not perfect. When I am sick - I go the doctor - and listen to what she tells me. A few years ago - I had my prostate removed. New research suggests that I would have been better leaving it in. That does not mean I have lost trust in the process. I understand the messiness of research. Science is what it is - with many shortcomings - one of them being the corrupting influence of money - I am looking at you - pharmaceutical industry. But science is better than religion - ie: making shit up, and then trying to convince everyone else it is the truth. Are u peddling religion?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2012
If you dont trust scientists - why do u frequent a board that reports the results of scientists?

To raise an alarm.
To ask questions.
Is that not what science is about, asking questions?
one of them being the corrupting influence of money -

And egos and prestige. Or are scientists not subject to such emotions?
Are u peddling religion?

Is sounds like you are peddling your faith in science. AGWites certainly are peddling their faith.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2012
"Are u on some kind of crusade to discredit science? " - dir

That does appear to be the Conservative goal.

Through history it has been their repeated goal, from long before Galileo.

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2012
Are u on some kind of crusade to discredit science?

Scientists don't need my help. They are doing just fine on their own.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2012
And yet now that scientists have raised the alarm you discount their opinions claiming that they are alarmist.

That makes you and your denialist brethren, disreputable, filth. Doesn't it?

"To raise an alarm.
Is that not what science is about, asking questions?" - RyggTard

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2012
A laughable comment coming from someone who chronically reposts Heartland Institute anti-science political propaganda to a science oriented site.

How much do they pay you to post here Tard Boy?

You do seem to spend most of your waking hours posting your political garbage here. Your last comment for example, was posted at 11:30 AM, and the one before that at 10:45 am, and the one before that at 10:30 am.

Are you unemployed for the purpose of spreading your ideology of ignorance?

"Scientists don't need my help. They are doing just fine on their own." - RyggTard
djr
3 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2012
"And yet now that scientists have raised the alarm you discount their opinions claiming that they are alarmist." Vendi Such irony - thanks Vendi - that about nails the whole conversation. At least Rygg - I think we have a good understanding of your mission - to "sound the alarm" regarding the evils of science. I will leave it at that - continue to enjoy learning from boards like Physorg regarding the exciting on going developments in science - and perhaps do my part in trying to provide balance to the lies from the peanut gallery when they arise. I take comfort in the understanding that the arc of history continues - and about all you can do Rygg is scream at the tide as it washes over you.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2012
"Too few scientists are willing to engage in public debates, to explain the relevance of their fields clearly and without jargon, and, in the process, to risk some jeering from a few colleagues."
http://campaignst...entists/
And has Hayek noted, the 'progressives' co-opted the 'intellectuals' into unquestioning support of statism.
Evidence is apparent every day here as those who claim to support science also support socialism which has demonstrably fails.
Deterministic science has great difficulty with emergent systems.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2012
scientists have raised the alarm

An alarm was raised in 1973 only this was about the coming ice age.

The AGWites have no problem being useful idiots for Enron, BP, GE ...?
djr
3 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2012
"An alarm was raised in 1973 only this was about the coming ice age." And Dr's use to think that putting leeches on you would cure you of disease. So new information came along - and they revised their understanding. When u r sick - do u go to the Dr? I do - cuz I trust the process of science - which is why our life expectancy is now in the high 70's, compared to 100 years ago - when it was around 40. That is how science works - new data comes along - we revise the understanding. Let me ask my question again - if u get sick, do u go to the Dr Rygg?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2012
new data comes along -

On the medical front, mostly NOT from conventional sources.
MDs are good mechanics, fix bones, cut out stuff, etc.
I look to other sources for more 'well being' ideas.
The ones the MDs scoff at, but work.