Anti- Science Committee

[gotsnowgotslush]

"I have already participated in 18 votes to repeal all or part of the Affordable Care Act, and have been to five hearings on whether climate change exists in (pause) the House Science Committee.”

“There isn’t much science in the House Science Committee,”

-U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Wash., three months into his second term in Congress


http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepo...nce-committee-what-climate-change/#25634101=0

http://vtdigger.org/2015/04/03/senate-committee-passes-resolution-affirming-climate-change/

The Vermont Senate has officially acknowledged the existence of human-caused climate change and recommitted to reducing the state’s carbon emissions.

The Senate passed a climate-change resolution Tuesday, on second reading, 23-5. The resolution needs a third reading before proceeding to the House.

Sen. Brian Campion, D-Bennington, proposed the legislation and said he and those supporting the measure believe Vermonters — “particularly Vermont’s young people” — need to know that climate-change policy is made “based on science.”

“We acknowledge that by passing this we respect science,” he said, “and we as policymakers will in essence base our policy on this.”The federal government “has not gone as far as this resolution,” Campion said.

The U.S. Senate passed a resolution stating climate change exists but stopped short of acknowledging that humans have contributed significantly to the phenomenon.

Campion’s original proposal included language that would have chastised the U.S. Senate’s lack of action. The language was removed during meetings of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy. Committee Chairman Christopher Bray, D-Addison, suggested the change. Bray said he wanted the resolution to focus on the goals of the state and the committee rather than interfere on the national political scene.

https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2015/04/15/vermont-senate-admits-climate-change/

State Legislators Taught Climate Change Denial During ALEC Conferences

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/03/13/senator-whitehouse-exposes-alec-climate-change-denial


Who are the people that deny Climate Change ?

Joseph Bast of the Heartland Institute

"The Earth has been here for 6,000 years!"
-Arizona State Sen. Sylvia Allen

Snopes said that yes, it is true, Sylvia Allen did say force people to attend church.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/07/08/751272/-Arizona-GOP-state-senator-Earth-is-6-000-years-old

If you or a loved one is suffering from Climate Change Denial Disorder, watch this and then seek help immediately:


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...fer-from-Climate-Change-Denial-Disorder-VIDEO

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/9bd64b041b/climate-change-denial-disorder

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

We also discovered that, underneath all these inconsistent and perplexing belief patterns, Americans’ knowledge of basic scientific and evolutionary facts looks rather poorly grounded. Less than half (43%) knew (or guessed in a multiple-choice format) that the earth is billions of years old and only 30% knew that the universe was also billions of years old. Barely more than four out of ten Americans (42%) was aware that the last dinosaur existed on earth millions of years ago; roughly a fourth (26%) thought it was a hundred thousand years ago or less. Just a fifth or so (22%) could correctly answer that modern humans emerged hundreds of thousands of years ago, and not unexpectedly, less than one third (28%) could accurately identify when human beings began to migrate across the world from the continent where they originally emerged: 10 000–100 000 years ago (see "Atlas of the Human Journey" at ). In fact, 39% believed it was actually less than 10 000 years ago .

Furthermore, Americans’ self-reported acquaintance or familiarity with key evolutionary concepts looks equally abysmal:

Concept Very Familiar Somewhat Familiar
Natural Selection 19% 28%
Adaptation 16% 29%
Genetic Mutation 14% 14%
Speciation 6% 14%

So, with evolutionary literacy so rudimentary and fundamentalist, theistic, and "intelligent design" — driven beliefs so widespread, it should not be terribly surprising that public resistance to the theory of evolution in American society remains remarkably high, as compared to what has been documented in international surveys of citizens from other economically and scientifically developed nations by Jon Miller, Eugenie C Scott, and Shinji Okamoto (in their "Public acceptance of evolution," Science 2006; 313 [11]: 765–6) — all this, mind you, in the Year of Darwin, 150 years after the publication of the Origin of Species. Surely the graybeard must be turning in his grave.

http://ncse.com/book/export/html/879

 

[BotanyBoy]

LOL M'uricuh is fucked...land of awesome ruined by dumb shit Christians.

 

[Comshaw]

Does this really surprise you? People don't want to know what is, they want to know only what they BELIEVE it is.

(sarcastic font = on)
Fuck a bunch of facts and truth, my magical being will kick your magical beings ass!
(sarcastic font = off)

[/SIZE]
Comshaw

 

[Ramp1311]

Science explains how the universe works, not how it got here. Unless science can tell us what was happening to our universe at -5 Plank seconds before the Big Bang, even science has to take somethings on faith.

There is a scientist, I think at MIT, who has shown that atoms can be programmed to store data (and had atoms calculate 1+1). Does not seem to be a big deal, until you realize that the universe maybe storing data. To what purpose, I have no idea. But as science has shown there is more to the universe than meets the eye.

It is the closed minded that does not consider all possibilities......

 

[BotanyBoy]

Science explains how the universe works, not how it got here. Unless science can tell us what was happening to our universe at -5 Plank seconds before the Big Bang, even science has to take somethings on faith.

God damn you fail at science harder than all fuck don't you? LOL

 

[KingOrfeo]

Science explains how the universe works, not how it got here. Unless science can tell us what was happening to our universe at -5 Plank seconds before the Big Bang, even science has to take somethings on faith.

There is a scientist, I think at MIT, who has shown that atoms can be programmed to store data (and had atoms calculate 1+1). Does not seem to be a big deal, until you realize that the universe maybe storing data. To what purpose, I have no idea. But as science has shown there is more to the universe than meets the eye.

It is the closed minded that does not consider all possibilities......

All true, I'm sure, and all irrelevant. To say that "even science has to take somethings on faith" is true only if the word "faith" is used in a much more narrow and technical sense than its common usage. Scientists do indeed consider all possibilities, that's their thing (what I said before about "faith" also applying here with equal force to "possibilities"); but when a field of science reaches a 95+% scientific consensus on something, as climatology has on the reality of anthropogenic climate change, that should shut down debate on the question, at least among everybody except scientists in the relevant field. Argument from Authority is only a fallacy where the "authority" really is not one on the subject in question, or for other reasons cannot be trusted, neither of which applies here.

Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is happening is a scientific question. It is not a moral, spiritual, economic, or political question. It is a scientific question purely and only. And it has been definitely and definitively answered in the affirmative by science. There is room left for public debate -- in moral/spiritual/economic/political terms -- only about what we can/should/need to do about it, not about whether it is happening.

 

[phrodeau]

Scientists do indeed consider all possibilities, that's their thing (what I said before about "faith" also applying here with equal force to "possibilities"); but when a field of science reaches a 95+% scientific consensus on something, as climatology has on the reality of anthropogenic climate change, that should shut down debate on the question, at least among everybody except scientists in the relevant field.

Not trying to start an internet fight here, but I'm uncomfortable with any situation that 'shuts down the debate', scientific or otherwise.

Just from a scientific perspective what would have happened to Galileo under that 95% approach? Or Christopher Columbus? Both individuals challenged the scientific consensus. I realize those aren't perfect examples, but they do illustrate that sometimes new discoveries come from unexpected places, and they disrupt the consensus or establishment. Debate, beyond scientists, is necessary...critical.

Science is as susceptible to groupthink, politics, and manipulation as any group, and I would argue more so in today's world where ideology seems to determine where grant money is awarded.

Open debate, transparent data and methods, and critical review are necessary. Critical, in fact, to sound science. With respect to Global Warming, AGW, Climate Change, they are especially important given that all the solutions being proposed are massive transfers of wealth, stifling regulations, and control over every aspect of human existence.

I do agree with you though, that science and policy decisions shouldn't be moral or spiritual. Economics and politics seem to invade everything, so I'm not sure how we isolate science to keep it from being influenced by those factors.

There is no real debate about climate change, because there is no evident science being done by those who deny climate change.

 

[phrodeau]

There is no real debate about climate change, because there is no evident science being done by those who deny climate change.

Okay. If what you're saying is true...

1. Lack of research (evident science in your words) by itself doesn't prove Climate Change either exists or is the result of mankind's influence. It simply indicates research has gone in only one direction. Possibly because government and research grants are only available to those whose results will confirm the consensus on climate change.

The one direction research goes in is toward scientific theories. There's plenty of money out there for research that might disprove climate change, but the science simply doesn't support those theories.

2. Individuals and Organizations skeptical of AGW, Climate Change or Global Warming exist. Unfortunately, they are marginalized and derided as 'in the pocket of oil companies', climate 'skeptics' and other interesting and colorful phrases. These same individuals and organizations are singled out and that limits/restricts the debate on the subject.

This is hardly true. The polls show that more people doubt climate change in America than they did a decade ago. There is plenty of exposure for misinformation and crackpots.

3. Even if there is no other evident science being conducted (which I don't believe to be true) questions regarding the raw data (surface temperatures) and the adjustments to that data still exist and haven't been answered to any degree. Information is available by a google search.

There is another side to the AGW, Global Warming, Climate Change, Abrupt Climate Change, Global Cooling (in the 70's) debate. It's worth the effort to at least review the other side. Isn't it?

What questions still remain? No reputable scientist adjusts data without very good reasons, and these reasons are usually laid out plainly in the papers. The deniers know that most people won't bother to follow up on their claims, and that they can create doubts where none exist.

 

[Aglaopheme]

There is no real debate about climate change, because there is no evident science being done by those who deny climate change.



2. Individuals and Organizations skeptical of AGW, Climate Change or Global Warming exist. Unfortunately, they are marginalized and derided as 'in the pocket of oil companies', climate 'skeptics' and other interesting and colorful phrases. These same individuals and organizations are singled out and that limits/restricts the debate on the subject.

There is another side to the AGW, Global Warming, Climate Change, Abrupt Climate Change, Global Cooling (in the 70's) debate. It's worth the effort to at least review the other side. Isn't it?

Exactly the opposite of your second point it what is actually taking place. There's so much fossil fuel money being dumped in to politics that the right refuses, in most cases to even entertain the idea of climate change. However, the tides are shifting thanks to brazen overreach.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Josh Duggar, and his family, advance the agenda of the Religious Extreme Right

http://www.chicagonow.com/becoming-supermommy/2015/05/poor-little-rapist-josh-duggar-edition/


"Willfully turned away from education and facts. Isolated from the last two centuries of knowledge. And worse, crammed into outdated gender roles that made my flesh crawl for them, especially the girls."

"After an episode where the family went to the creation museum, and a bright, smiling tween daughter talked about how NOW she knows that all that science and evolution stuff is nonsense, I couldn't bear to turn it back on. Ever again."

 

[dan_c00000]

Just from a scientific perspective what would have happened to Galileo under that 95% approach? Or Christopher Columbus? Both individuals challenged the scientific consensus.

Before Galileo some ancient Greeks figured out that the Earth revolved around the sun. And of course Copernicus figured this out too.

Pythagoras also reasoned that the Earth was round and attempted to measure it's diameter. He was off by about 15% but considering he did it 2600 or so years ago not a bad job.

Finally, this.

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Doran_Anderegg_Cook.jpg

 

[KingOrfeo]

Just from a scientific perspective what would have happened to Galileo under that 95% approach? Or Christopher Columbus? Both individuals challenged the scientific consensus.

Both lived before such a thing existed, before peer-reviewed science in the modern sense existed.

Nowadays, for every Galileo there are a thousand TimeCube Guys.

You really need to read this, all the way through, it won't take you very long at all, and please don't post again until you have.

 

[KingOrfeo]

There is another side to the AGW, Global Warming, Climate Change, Abrupt Climate Change, Global Cooling (in the 70's) debate. It's worth the effort to at least review the other side. Isn't it?

No more effort than it will take you to read this.

Global cooling?

Scientists noticed that historically, the world had been heading towards an ice age.[13] A minority of scientists in the 1970's and earlier also predicted that the pollution would have cooling effect due to increased cloud cover from factories and other emissions. This actually is a thing and does throw a bit of a curveball into the models and appropriate course of action. For example, after 9/11 global air traffic more or less shut down, and the lack of contrails led to the discovery that airplane contrails act to stablize air temperature throughout the day[14]. The real world is complicated[citation NOT needed], and people use science to discover how it works. As such, scientific knowledge marches ever forward, and obviously the world has been warming. But the few works published has been enough for "climate skeptics" to strip mine for quotes.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Pythagoras also reasoned that the Earth was round and attempted to measure it's diameter. He was off by about 15% but considering he did it 2600 or so years ago not a bad job.

Not Pythagoras (an early philosophical figure, who long predated Socrates). You're thinking of Eratosthenes, who lived much later, after Greek philosophy (including natural philosophy) was much more fully developed.

 

[renard_ruse]

The perversion of "science" for political purposes. These people really are scum.

The response is to start throwing in the term "science" all the time, willy nilly, to turn the misuse of the concept by politicians into a joke. Use the word for everything and eventually it will take the impact away from the politicians who misuse it. Make a joke out of it, and take its verbal power.

 

[dan_c00000]

Not Pythagoras (an early philosophical figure, who long predated Socrates). You're thinking of Eratosthenes, who lived much later, after Greek philosophy (including natural philosophy) was much more fully developed.

You may be right. I just remember reading that Pythagoras either measured/came up with theory of a spherical Earth.

Regardless, of who came up with it most ancient Greeks believed the Earth was round.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The perversion of "science" for political purposes. These people really are scum.

The response is to start throwing in the term "science" all the time, willy nilly, to turn the misuse of the concept by politicians into a joke. Use the word for everything and eventually it will take the impact away from the politicians who misuse it. Make a joke out of it, and take its verbal power.

But, we should not want to take away its verbal power. Science as real science is one of the most important and respectable things in the world, much more so than religion or faith, which are in no danger of losing their verbal power.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

A seven year old child playing doctor with a one year old baby, and a 14 year old boy molesting many toddlers and children, according to Religious Fundamentalists, are sexual violations that are equal to each other.


Abstinence only classes do not include basic biology of the human reproductive system ?

 

[BotanyBoy]

The perversion of "science" for political purposes. These people really are scum.

The response is to start throwing in the term "science" all the time, willy nilly, to turn the misuse of the concept by politicians into a joke. Use the word for everything and eventually it will take the impact away from the politicians who misuse it. Make a joke out of it, and take its verbal power.

LOL youz just mad the science doesn't agree with the RWCJ "ohhh nothings wrong!!" big coal/oil dick suckery.....

Abstinence only classes do not include basic biology of the human reproductive system ?

Biology is just liburhul hippie religion.....

 

[renard_ruse]

... It is not a moral, spiritual, economic, or political question. It is a scientific question purely and only. And it has been definitely and definitively answered in the affirmative by science. There is room left for public debate -- in moral/spiritual/economic/political terms -- only about what we can/should/need to do about it, not about whether it is happening.

Right, global warming had to be re-marketed as "climate change." That's why the public considers the whole thing, rightly, to be a joke.

 

[phrodeau]

Right, global warming had to be re-marketed as "climate change." That's why the public considers the whole thing, rightly, to be a joke.

No it didn't. The term "climatic change" was used long before "global warming" ever was.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Right, global warming had to be re-marketed as "climate change." That's why the public considers the whole thing, rightly, to be a joke.

Jesus Christ...it's like you intentionally went out and found the facts and went completely against them in favor of partisan whackery.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Since I've been following the issue, at least three names have been used.

Global Warming
AGW (Anthropogenic global warming)
Climate Change

The most accepted term seems to be "Climate Change", which is also the most generic. The term can encompass just about anything and frequently seems to do just that.

On Surface Temps and Satellite Temps, I saw this:

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/updated-satellite-data-shows-even-less-global-warming-than-before/

Whether or not 95% or 99% of scientists agree, it doesn't look like the debate will go away anytime soon.

But satellite still shows warming......

You're right the debate will go on as long as there is money in coal/oil that percentage of people after that money, the politicians who represent them and their fans will deny, deny, deny....the worst case scenario could happen and they will deny right on through it.

 

[Aglaopheme]

It's not climate change. It's witchcraft and sodomy. "You can just see it".

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/29/texas-flooding-caused-climate-change-witchcraft-sodomy.html