Weaponizing and Politicizing 'Science'

[ramairthree]

There are two things regarding science I find ironic.

One, true scientists that think religious people are ridiculous,
While clinging to certain belief systems that literally are their religion.

Two "educated" people,
Without even a year of calc, calc based physics, Chem, etc. That do not even have the most basic understanding of science thinking they know science.

[docsherm]

Hello, Al Gore called and he wants his 1999 back....... I thought that rational people figured out that all of the "science" about climate change was made up........ Let me guess, these scientists are now saying that MMR causes autism also...... Maybe​ it was just too long ago. They need to hire some historians to research 15 years ago.

[26 Inf]

Man. Megademic, if these shots are aimed at me just PM me with your email and I can send you college transcripts and copies of my academic awards. I are educated.

I am also open to the possibility you are right and I am mistaken in my beliefs, but I'm pretty inclined to believe I'm right. If you go back and reread my post you will note I said 'How much of an impact is up for debate.'

Let me give you a belief statement - The Earth goes through cycles, some believe based on changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Right now we are in a warming period (understand period means overall trend over time) in the overall cycle. If we stopped all emissions, the earth would still warm and cool. What is unknown is how, if any, our carbon emissions into the atmosphere impact the swings of the cycles. These cycle are long enough that if we fired up every coal fired plant we could, gave everyone on earth a two-cycle vehicle, you and I would be long gone before we knew if it had an overall impact. As I said, we ain't gambling with ourselves, we are gambling with our future generations. I prefer to error on the side of some caution in our emissions.

I have friends that are homosexual, black, hispanic, Jewish, Mormon, Agnostic and Athiest. I don't get pissed because they don't walk in lockstep with me and believe exactly the way I do.

[26 Inf]

One, true scientists that think religious people are ridiculous,

I stayed after lecture once and asked one of my Physics Professors if he was religious. He replied yes he was. The course I was taking at the time was universe astronomy and you could believe that tracing the beginning of the universe through the light coming at us would somewhat hinder a belief in God. I asked if anything he taught challenged his faith. He said no and proceeded to tell me why. Surprisingly his beliefs dovetailed with mine.

So not all.

[TAZ]

Interesting. Last night Vice had a segment on about activist/politically oriented scientists. Didn't really watch as it was WAAAAY past my bed time, but the intro had the premise that more scientists need to enter politics to insure that policies affecting "science" aren't created by idiots, but rather people with at least some experience. Not a bad premise, but then they babbled on about how only left leaning scientists showed any interest in politics and then had a phd in psychology offer his expertise on climate change.

[MegademiC]

Man. Megademic, if these shots are aimed at me just PM me with your email and I can send you college transcripts and copies of my academic awards. I are educated.

I am also open to the possibility you are right and I am mistaken in my beliefs, but I'm pretty inclined to believe I'm right. If you go back and reread my post you will note I said 'How much of an impact is up for debate.'

Let me give you a belief statement - The Earth goes through cycles, some believe based on changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Right now we are in a warming period (understand period means overall trend over time) in the overall cycle. If we stopped all emissions, the earth would still warm and cool. What is unknown is how, if any, our carbon emissions into the atmosphere impact the swings of the cycles. These cycle are long enough that if we fired up every coal fired plant we could, gave everyone on earth a two-cycle vehicle, you and I would be long gone before we knew if it had an overall impact. As I said, we ain't gambling with ourselves, we are gambling with our future generations. I prefer to error on the side of some caution in our emissions.

I have friends that are homosexual, black, hispanic, Jewish, Mormon, Agnostic and Athiest. I don't get pissed because they don't walk in lockstep with me and believe exactly the way I do.

Lol, I didn't even read your post when I typed that.
You sound reasonable. I can't say for sure what's happening, but when you look at the scale we are talking about, and the variables involved, I can't buy that we have an impact. My dealings with scientists is that they are great at researching details, not figuring out how that research impacts a system, especially one you cannot control any variables on, and then solve an issue, or even determining if there is an issue for that matter.

Scientists provide data. They dont tell me how to do my job, they sure as hell wont tell me how to live. The entire thing is a theory based upon theories.
No one can tell me if it's going to rain tomorrow, so I don't believe they have a clue if the Arctic is going to melt in 500 years.


The kicker:
With that in mind, I'm sure as heck not going to pursue people to force me to give up rights or dump half my money into their friends business based on the opinions of these scientists.

[Averageman]

It isn't about "Science", it is however about MONEY ! Follow the money ala Carbon Tax Credits and Albert Gore kind of thing? Hmmmm.
Our Federal Government hands out grants to Ivy League Universities, these same Universities are setting on enough combined cash to pay off the deficit.
Some single Mom with three kids who is working ten hour days needs to be sending her tax dollars to the Federal Government so they can send money to Harvard for Science.
So money is good for science, just not using your own money if you are a University.
Yup, yup, yup, it all makes sense to me now. Just how many of our legislators went to these schools? Conflict of interest?
Crickets....

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I struggle to come up with a socio/political/economic issue where scientists got the projection right? Against a back drop of huge failures.

On the religion "vs" science, I say that God sat down with Adam, Eve and Cain and Able and started out with algebra through calculus and then Chem, o-chem, p-chem and transitioning to particle physics and finally the Grand Unified Thoery. Everyone got an F. So God turned to the white board and stared out. In the beginning there was darkness.... but Adam leaned forward and swiped the apple Eve had brought for the teacher and ZAP, it's been downhill from there.

The Bible is not an ownersmanual for the Frick'n universe. God is not the intellectual equivalent of a welfare program where you get stuff for doing nothing. Dawkins makes it an indictment of religion that particle physics isn't explained in the Bible.

Plus, this science push fits into the Progressive penchant for intellectual elitism.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

http://energy-transitions.org/sites/...ry_DIGITAL.PDF

We just need to use 1/3 the energy we use now and spend $600,000,000,0000 a year on clean energy.

Funny, that number is familiar. Oh, sure. The US defense budget...

[Inkslinger]

Science is only as good as available information. Things change.