Slashdot Mirror
Abuses of Science Political Cartoon Contest
AngryNick writes "The Union of Concerned Scientists has announced a cartoon contest for amateur and professional artists.
'The absurdity of political interference in science is fertile ground for satire,' said Dr. Francesca Grifo, Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program. 'We hope these contests encourage amateur and professional cartoonists alike to express concern--through humor and art--about the impact of the abuse of science on our safety, health and environment.'
A celebrity judge panel will select twelve finalists and the public will then choose the Grand Prize winner. The winner will receive a host of prizes, including $500 and an all-expenses-paid trip to have lunch with the celebrity judge of his or her choice.
You can read Contest details, sample topics and the list of celebrity judges."
Al Gore as a sheperd, leading a bunch of sheep-people to see his movie projected on a wall. While they're busying looking at the movie, they don't realize they're being led of a cliff!
Well, if I had any artistic talent...
A cartoon of Darwin with a turban except the turban is actually a bomb with a lit fuse.
Any bets on what percentage of total entries will contain characterizations of George Bush Jr.?
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
If we're talking political abuse-of-science, can I link to this essay by Michael Crichton about "environmentalism as religion" just to remind everyone that things like this cut both ways?
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
A celebrity judge panel will select twelve finalists
I wonder if we are going to see only one side, overly liberal people who believe whatever people say is science as long as they are saying the right and/or republicans are ignoring it, abusing it, etc etc.
This is stupid, and does not belong on Slashdot at all. It will not be an open minded critique of science and politics, it will be a right/republican bashing contest. And sorry to say for all you super liberals here on Slashdot not everything the right or republicans do or say in regards to science is wrong, nor is either all the stuff the left or democrats say is correct either.
I remember when Slashdot use to be about science and geekyness.....
Abuses of science.... poorly worded?
Wow, did anyone else read that headline and think that they were inviting people to make their political attacks on science in a cartoon?
I expected a cartoon attacking stem cell research, of maybe a mushroom cloud over hiroshima with the caption "scientific progress".
Of course, it's completely the other way, as I would hope... but yeah, title misleading!
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Both the funniest and most insightful comment I've read on slashdot this year... hell, in the whole last 12 months proberly.
dupe this story when the results & cartoons are ready, please :)
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Are neither Scientists, nor very concerned. To be honest they're just another Socialist/Communist POLITICAL organization. If you examine their positions closely you'll find there's little if any SCIENCE backing them up (Well beyond junk science), but one heck of a lot of left wing politics.
/.
And they've been WRONG on pretty much everything they've taken a stance on since their inception. One hell of a record for 'scientists' isn't it?
Anon cause telling the truth gets you modded down here on
Clearly the winner.
Or maybe ManBearPig.
Nah.....definately Two Days.
-john
Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
We need a cartoon that depicts an email recipient reading about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide with a send this to everybody you know footer.
inventor: I've found this thing i call electricity!
politician: what is it good for?
inventor: you can tax it!
Bush and the Neo-cons don't give a fuck about any facts. If they say the sky is not blue, you are expected believe it as a matter of faith, even if the Neo-cons do not believe it themselves.
Yes, I "get" the "why".... ...is disquieting
But
the association of the two words
from many perspectives.
And I speak as a true-quill Geek.
Please no flame wars about the old churches stance on celestial mechanics - we've all seen it before, no need to bring it up and get side tracked. We are talking about todays political climate.
And please let's not limit this discussion to evolution and creationists - there's been a great deal of interference on the topic of global warming. The old Republican party stance that it's not occurring has been disproven by the vast majority of atmospheric/climatologists scientists, and have shown it to be a fact. I hate that because Al Gore (A Democrat) is pro-environment, that many Republicans feel that they have to take an opposing viewpoint - what gives!? Yes, I'm sure the Dems do the same with other issues, but we are talking about science here, so let's keep our egos and passions aside and behave like rational thinkers.
..........FULL STOP.
But bring up the Nazi eugenics experiments--and bear in mind the eugenics is scientifically established--and they just mumble and walk away.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Right.... the republicans are raping the environment because they want to stick it to the democrats. It has NOTHING to do with the millions of campaign dollars contributed by companies that profit from the destruction of the planet.
People of religion have been studying science for decades.
There is no disparity.
Those who seek conflict only search to reaffirm their own personal beliefs about the world.
The "debate" deserves parody.
It is a political, not a scientific organization.
Those of you not old enough to remember its 'fellow traveler' support of the Soviet Union and its geopolitical aims can do some reading instead of mouthing off. Learn something.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
When I read the New Testament, one thing that really stands out to me is the emphasis Jesus placed on always asking questions. He never told his followers to obey him obediently. He wanted them to question his actions and words. He wanted them to think for themselves, and analyze the world around them, for themselves. That's the very essence of science: understanding nature via observation and experimentation.
A common theme throughout the Gospels is somebody asking Jesus a question, and Jesus telling them to look. Sometimes they would have to look inside themselves, but other times they were told to look at the world around them. They could find the answers there. All they had to do was look.
Frankly, we don't need comics to prove wrong those Republicans, neoconservatives, evangelists, etc., who have perverted the teachings of Christ. As Christ taught us to do, all we need to do is look! We can look for ourselves at his very teachings just to see how perverted some people's interpretations of them are. And we can use his wisdom in our pursuit of science. As scientists, we always need to be continuously observing, experimenting, and otherwise understanding the world around us. That's exactly what Jesus encouraged his followers to do.
How many people have been killed by enviro-weenies?
Blar.
Me, I do believe it's happening--but that human activity has absolutely nothing to do with it. Rather, it's part of the natural cycle that has been in effect since before there WERE human beings on earth.
The notion that it is caused by what puny humans can do is just laughable. One has only to look at the phenomenon of Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. St. Helens--both of which put more particulates into the atmosphere in DAYS than humans have throughout their history--to realize the earth is a self-regulating system.
Global warming, if it is really happening, is a natural occurence, and will bring as much benefit as it does harm.
However, socialist politicians, who lust for the power to establish their order in the lives of individuals, are using it as a pretext for a power grab. This must NEVER be allowed to happen.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
There is significant evidence for global warming, but less showing that it is caused by people. It seems to me that scientists are politically pressured to support global warming, just like evolution (Which I don't necessarily disagree with, but I doubt many scientific organizations would give support to a scientist with another theory, even if it wasn't in any way similar to intelligent design.).
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Heck, if we're talking abuse of science, I can't think of any better subject to discuss than the author of Andromeda Strain, Prey, and State of Fear. The man's been mangling science for years and then making his books look better by tossing a gratuitous biblography of all the papers he supposedly read to justify his plots. (Alien crystal viruses, grey goo, and local cooling disproving global warming, oh my!)
Michael Crichton doesn't know what he's talking about. State of Fear is filled with junk science. Read a more thorough debunking here.
The essay you link is nothing but an attack on the argument by attacking the source of the argument as being from zealots. He accuses the environmental movement of being responsible for massive deaths, and claims that they're distorting facts without backing any of it up with "facts" of his own -- except for "facts" like the harmlessness of second-hand smoke. Crichton's a loon and an asshole for making that last argument in particular, but the bulk of the essay argument is that environmentalists are wrong in their assertions (without any justification of why) and thus religious nuts for asserting something that his holiness Crichton declares to be wrong. (Oh, he could cite mainstream articles, but you wouldn't believe him anyway, so why back up his bald-faced lies?)
He attacks environmentalists as being the same as people who romanticize primativism, use errors on predictions of a socially affected phenomena like population growth show that scientists who care about the environment can't be trusted. He claims that DDT is harmless because it's not a carcinogenic (when it's the liver, immune, and nervous toxicity that actually caused it to be banned). He states that we can't totally roll back carbon emissions without fusion technology, so it's a waste of time to bother reducing them in the meantime. He falls back on the old saw of the environment being a complex system that's hard to understand as justification for not erring on the side of safety.
His speech is nothing but a litany of half-truths, distortions, unbacked assertions, and ad hominem attacks. So, yes, let's start our discussion of abuse of science with a discussion of Crichton. It's only appropriate.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
If someone can draw, how about drawing a scientist in a maze made out of patents and lawyers carrying him through it, labeled "A good study needs good supporters"?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Won't the Christians riot?
FWIW, I don't think that (1) evolution has definitively been established, and (2) that there is anything even approaching a definitive establishment as to cause.
Ironic how the "Union of Concerned Scientists" invites criticism of political influence over science when that is precisely what they do. Take a look at their efforts and you will see a group that would be more aptly called "the fervent minority of environmental reactionaries". Start with the publications of Margaret Mellon or Jane Rissler.
So what about the cartoons? Do they hope to endear themselves with the scientific community? To the public? Maybe they have a chance with the latter, but the former is more likely to understand the concept of reletive risk and reward.
First entomology, then virology, and finally bioinformatics systems. Bugs follow me wherever I go.
odwiedz radio internetowe
So abuse of science, how far does that stretch?
Could I not argue that science invented weapons so the Iraq invasion is an abuse of science.
Could I argue that nuclear power was invented to save people, so using it as an excuse to pressure Iran is an abuse of science?
We could push this so far it's insane.
I like muppets.
If you want politics out of science, stop having political processes funding so much basic research. We need research charities where the public can place their bets. Righties and lefties both pervert with religion and junk science to justify nannying. Cartoon contests are the last thing we need.
eg: NASA is currently cutting back or eliminating many science missions in order to pay for the next-gen shuttle, which assumes Congress won't cut NASA's budget over the next ten years -and- there are no cost overruns anywhere, according to the New Scientist.
eg: The US has spent a miniscule fraction of what it pledged and committed in the fight against bird flu, according to the World Bank. Whether an epidemic ever occurs is irrelevant in this. What matters is that even hard-nosed financial institutions are getting concerned. When the economists think Government is spending too little, it's time to be worried.
(I'm not singling out the US because it's particularly bad amongst nations - it actually does better than most - but because that's what the contest is about. Had this been an international contest, I'm sure I could find alarming attitudes in every civilized nation on the planet. It wasn't that long ago that the South African Health Minister promoted garlic as a cure for AIDS. Although I suppose there might be a lot of vampires in South African politics.)
I just don't know how this project can possibly reach its true potential with such limited backing. Most who could enter a truly biting cartoon won't be bothered, because there won't be any perceived value. If getting into the final rounds constituted a publication in a peer-reviewed forum, then perhaps there would be more interest. Money from pro-science organizations towards prizes would have been good, too.
For those on Slashdot with no artistic talents - enter anyway. Most scientists can't draw worth a damn, so it'll be purely down to the ideas in the cartoon anyway. Besides, there are valid reasons for believing the readers here have a broader understanding of the state of science and the attitudes around it - those focused totally on their subject won't have time to read up on anything much outside of their speciality and so won't be able to so easily draw on attitudes and perceptions that are universal.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Umm actually I think world-wide, scientists DO believe both 1) and 2) have been established. We have seen the enemy and it is us.
The tired old line "lil' po' us couldn't possiblly affect the climate of the world" doesn't really hold water. Who would have thought lil' po' us could consume so much oil that it is very likely that we will run out in the next century or so? Unless you believe this recent patch of higher oil prices is "cyclical" as well.
My, my, my, aren't we jealous.
I've been thinking about whether evolution is a scientific theory lately. Maybe it's that I'm insufficiently imaginative, or maybe that biologists are less inclined to Popperian philosophies of science than people from a physical science background, but I can't see how theories about speciation over millions of years could be either falsified or tested repeatedly. In what sense, then, are they scientific?
Michael Crichton once again shows how focusing on local differences and exceptions and extrapolating them as a trend is an intellectual folly. If you want to seriously argue that the EPA budget-cutting, pro-mercury in the air, pro-arsenic in the water, pro-relaxation of pesticide rules Republicans that adamantly refuse to entertain the idea of ratifying Kyoto treaty are no different from the Democrats, then you're deliberately cherry-picking your facts to bolster your dellusional worldview -- you know, like Michael Crichton does.
Nixon was moderate to liberal on a number of domestic issues from wage controls to gun control to affirmative action to establishing the EPA, OSHA, and NOAA. He supported a lot of market regulation in a time period that pundits were saying that conservatism was dead. He was very different from many conservatives today, and many of his policies were great successes that were overshadowed by his personal corruption.
As for Johnson, he did open up a pristine area to drilling. However, he also said the following when signing the Clean Water Act:
Johnson's record on the environment was overall quite good. His wife Lady Bird Johnson was a tireless environmental advocate. It was Johnson's administration that first started looking into the environment as a matter of air and water pollution instead of just protected land conservation. Nixon just kept the ball rolling that Johnson kicked off. From the Wikipedia, here is a list of environmental regulations kicked off in the Johnson era:
To suggest that Johnson (and thus Democrats) are and were not environmentalists based on one single action against shows Crichton's lack of intellectual integrity.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Dunno what those "particulates" are - maybe you meant "particles" ?
In any case, it doesn't matter. Particles aren't the problem (with global warming), carbon dioxide is.
Yup. Finally 100% percent of the population will know how to swim ;).
Personally, I value survival higher than political ideology. But don't worry, when the major population centers get flooded, and the population flees to higher ground and starts fighting for food (since the best farmlands are underwater too), the resulting chaos will destroy any semblance of order.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Somebody telling it like is getting is modded down again for expressing an opinion the moderators simply don't like. What a shock.
Meanwhile, if you check out the UCS's site, you'll see on the front page issues like fuel economy, global warming, nuclear attack against Iran. Nope, no political agenda there, just scientific ones.
I'd like to also know how someone would think the parent comment was "offtopic" when he explains exactly what the UCS is.
Or possibly accurate? I have to admit to being underwhelmed by Mr. Crichton. He seems to be totally unconcerned with truth in the pursuit of ??? At one point I thought it was either artistic or commercial success, but currently a political agenda appears more likely. (Of course, there's no reason it couldn't be some combination of the suspects.) However, the common element is a disregard of the truth.
That said, Andromeda Strain was an exciting movie, and I enjoyed it. I *never* thought it would be used as a scientific policy theme any more than I thought the same of "Forbidden Planet" or "War of the Worlds". They meet the same standard of scientific accuracy. I suspect that of the three "Forbidden Planet" is dramatically the best, "War of the Worlds" had the best press coverage, and "Andromeda Strain" had the best special effects. None of those qualify any of them to set science policy.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
He falls back on the old saw of the environment being a complex system that's hard to understand as justification for not erring on the side of safety.
You had me interested until that point. Come on, that's just a little too obviously biased to let slide - side of safety for whom? Future generations who might be affected? Or current generations whose economic interests *will* be significantly affected?
I'm not arguing against the theory of global warming, but merely stating that "playing it safe" is an arbitrary term. Some of the anti-global-warming-hype people do think they're playing it safe, but they're looking out for different interests than those you espouse.
"Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter"
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Somone steal this and submit it:
Devil holding up a sign, "My gandpa ain't no monkey!" in a group of evolution protestors. One guys turns and says, "YOU'RE here too?" And the devil replys, "What? And let even MORE people see how brilliant he can be?"
Since understanding the world around us is probably the best defense against God's wrath. =)
"You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo
Bias, Balance, & Bullshit: "Balanced" news is making you stupid by Allan Uthman
Last issue of The BEAST contained our annual "50 Most Loathsome People in America" list, by far our most popular feature. As always, once it hit the internet, it was unstoppable, and still pervades the "blogosphere" as I write this. E-mails are streaming in by the hundreds, and surprisingly enough, most are positive. But, of course, there are a lot of angry messages from conservatives, too, each giving us a piece of their mind, most of whom hardly seem able to spare it.
By far the biggest complaint is that old chestnut, liberal bias. Any list that doesn't include Michael Moore, or Ted Kennedy, or Howard Dean, or Cindy Sheehan, etc., is obviously the product of partisan bias, they say. Of course, it seems kind of stupid to expect some kind of dispassionate ideological "balance" from this tiny biweekly, which is called, after all, The BEAST. But beyond that, the very idea that the list cannot be considered legitimate unless it contains the same number of Democrats as Republicans is just silly, a symptom of what I think is a national neurosis, a logical virus that infests modern political discourse in America. That virus is "balance," or rather, the exaltation of balance, the glorification of balance, to the point that truth itself is subjugated or simply dismissed as unknowable, or nonexistent, or just plain irrelevant.
Syndicated columnist John Leo's most recent piece, which actually cites the Loathsome List (though he calls us a "left blogger"), is a good example. Titled "The Left Now Joins the Right in Attacking Mainstream Media," the column indicates, among other things, that Leo is incredibly out of touch with liberal thinking:
Liberals wage many battles, but have you heard which one is the major struggle now? Brace yourselves: It's the campaign "against the established media and its bizarre relationship with the right wing and the truth." That's from the Daily Kos, a popular liberal blog. No, it's not a satire. Just when conservatives thought they were getting somewhere against the entrenched liberalism of the newsroom culture, it turns out that the newsroom has been reactionary all along. The real lonely insurgents fighting for media balance and truth are liberals. The mind reels.
Droll stuff. Leo imagines that liberal complaints of conservative media bias are a brand new development. He also seems to think the charges are ludicrous. But what is truly ludicrous is the assertion that the mainstream media--of which The BEAST is clearly not a member--leans left. It's obvious, from the speed with which White House scandals drop from the radar, and the lack of outrage over clearly illegal executive policies, that the "MSM" has been much, much softer on this president than the last, considering their respective performances. Contrary to conventional wisdom, congressional corruption is much worse than ever before, but you would hardly know it from the kid-gloved coverage it receives.
It may not be that news sources suffer from a right-wing bias as much as a corporate bias. Relaxed FCC regulations have paved the way for the consolidation of huge media conglomerates--publicly traded juggernauts with a vested interest in the deregulation agenda of the GOP. But the real distinction in my eyes between the bias complaints from the right and from the left is in their very nature. Liberal complaints mainly focus on lies, distortions, and sins of omission, while conservatives complain about "balance." The left wants a press that insists on facts, while the right wants an even presentation of partisan versions of reality. But there aren't just two sides to each issue; sometimes there are many, and sometimes there is only one that rings true.
The balance fallacy is hurting the country. Presenting every issue as a he said/she said dispute, an unending, irresolvable argument, sounds fair, but what happens when one side really is wro
I'm betting that cartoons lampooning the scientific hoaxes of the last year won't be well recieved.
How about a cartoon showing how genes sometimes mutate randomly and allow creation of different species (an ape becomes a man.) And then another cartoon showing that a scientist modifies a gene by design to enhance some specific quality of an organism (a scientologist trying to become a rationalist.) A signature underneath this: 'Evolution: 4*10^9 years. Intelligent design: 40 years, so this may take a while.'
You can't handle the truth.
THE WORLD REVOLVES AROUND:
A) The family
B) The U.S.
C) Democratic principles
D) All of the above
For all this discussion has focused on the "debate" about global warming, if you think that political interference is limited to environmental science, you're missing a very, very big picture.
Let me start off by saying that scientific advancement is not a left-right issue, and should never be viewed through the narrow prism of party politics. However, the United States has fallen into a (man-made) rut of EVERYTHING being split down partisan lines (even national security, even voting integrity, even scientific research) so that is the playing field we are on, whether we like it or not. Wedge politics infect every issue now.
Under this administration, the religious right has exerted undue influence over decisions ranging from:
(source article for that list, a must-read)
And without going on a daylong linkhunt, they are passing bad information about condom effectiveness, intimidating non-profit organizations which do not toe the party line on reproductive issues, and denying USAID funds to overseas orgs which even mention abortion, or distribute condoms as part of family planning efforts. (Imagine sending $15B to Africa to fight AIDS without distributing or even even mentioning condoms! Talk about throwing good money away...It's like fighting fires without water, it's that foolish.)
And don't even let's discuss the bi-partisan support for embryonic stem cell research which has been effectively neutered under this administration. Or the medical expertise of Dr. Bill Frist in the case of a braindead woman he never examined, or his patently absurd claim that AIDS may be transmitted via tears and sweat.
Sadly, I could document this sort of war on objective science all day, but I think I've made my point. It infests the policy debate over far more than global warming, and if you think there's no difference between the parties on this, you're sadly, tragically mistaken.
Vonnegut: "What is the purpose of life? To be the eyes, ears, and conscience of the Creator of the Universe, you fool."
from an objective standpoint, who would you rather win the debate?
the way i see it.. if we are not causing global warming, but take environmental precautions assuming we were, there is no harm in that. Every environmental measure taken so far has had little effect on profit margins, and increased the overall quality of life in developed nations.
this is much like putting a seatbelt on when you drive. while there is no guarantee that you will hit someone head on and be tossed through your windshield, I imagine you would be thankful you buckled up if you did have a car wreck that day.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I wonder if we are going to see only one side, overly liberal people who believe whatever people say is science as long as they are saying the right and/or republicans are ignoring it, abusing it, etc etc.
Setting up a dichotomy (badly).
This is stupid, and does not belong on Slashdot at all.
Summing up his own post.
it will be a right/republican bashing contest. And sorry to say for all you super liberals here on Slashdot
Flamebaiting one side of the dichotomy and propping up the other as victims.
I remember when Slashdot use to be about science and geekyness.....
Which somehow doesn't include cartoons about science (in trollland): An obvious falsehood baiting for an easy correction.
You can't take the sky from me...
Our best farmlands are 200-700m above sea level. Even the most extreme of global warming cases put that above water.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
here
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Dunno what those "particulates" are
http://www.answers.com/particulates&r=67
Putting on my seat belt doesn't cost me anything.
Rewiring the global economy based on global-warming threats costs us a lot.
Extraordinary claims may not require extraordinary proof -- but extraordinary demands do.
He claims that DDT is harmless because it's not a carcinogenic (when it's the liver, immune, and nervous toxicity that actually caused it to be banned).
No, it was banned for largely ecological reasons, as it is highly toxic to birds and aquatic life. There have not been any conclusive studies to show its health effects on humans, negative or not. Perhaps you should be getting your facts straight.
"The notion that it is caused by what puny humans can do is just laughable."
Why is it that human beings (all 6+ billion of us) suddenly become puny and insignificant when, and only when, global warming is mentioned?
"One has only to look at the phenomenon of Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. St. Helens--both of which put more particulates into the atmosphere in DAYS than humans have throughout their history--to realize the earth is a self-regulating system."
A self-regulating system just like, for example, the human body. Until the day it has a major heart attack. Or until it can no longer cope with the over-eating and lack and exercise and develops diabetes. Bad analogy? OK then, what about the planet Venus? It's closer to the sun than we are, but not close enough to explain it's heat. But that's OK, right? Surely, in a few billion years time, it'll just sort itself out again?
"Global warming, if it is really happening, is a natural occurence, and will bring as much benefit as it does harm."
Hmmmm, you seem to need to cover yourself here. Just in case some people didn't actually believe you that it isn't happening, and/or it isn't our fault, well now it's not even a problem.
In which case, why did you make all your previous arguments?
"However, socialist politicians, who lust for the power to establish their order in the lives of individuals, are using it as a pretext for a power grab. This must NEVER be allowed to happen."
Oh, so it's all the fault of people you don't like? Good job the argument isn't over anything actually important.
Muppet.
The contest is based on political interference. The people you're attacking (environmentalist hippies) misuse/misinterpret scientific findings to fit to their vision of the world. The people they're aiming at attack well establish science by cutting funding, exploiting government, "refuting" science (often using ad hominem attacks), manipulating the general public's understanding of the subject, etc. That's interfering.
"it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
As if the Union of Concerned Scientists isn't infamous for perverting science for its own political ends itself. Real science that contradicts the Union of Concerned Scientists highly normative ideologically-based junk science? No, can't have that, people might begin to question the agenda, and more importantly, the funding, of "scientific" special interest groups.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
The toxicity studies were done on animals. You're right that human studies haven't been conclusive. It was in fact banned because of its effects on animals, particularly eggshells. I don't know why I trimmed that part when hastily rearranging the post as I was writing it, and it does come off as saying something false. My bad.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Nonsense. Scientists merely require a new theory to have something near the same level of explanitory power and evidence to be taken seriously. 'Punctuated equilirium' changed evolutionary theory significantly because it explained evidence better. Intelligent design is ignored by real scientists because it has explained nothing (pointed out a few limited exceptions maybe, but still explained nothing) compared to the millions of observations explained by the other theories.
I think the point that he so ineloquently stated is that Al Gore and his followers are just as guilty of eco-extremism as Bush and his followers are as guilty of corporate-extremism. Just because Al Gore is blinded by his hatred for modern man and most Slashdotters are of his particular political party does not mean that he's absolutely correct. He's an extremist; but, at least I refuse to lump all environmentalists with his extremism.
On the opposite side, however, those of us who do NOT agree with Al Gore are automatically tagged as those who want to destroy the atmosphere in the name of the all-mighty dollar. It's completely hypocritical to despise when the right vilifies the extremist left but accept when the left vilifies the extremist right; yet that's what's most likely going to happen not only throughout this thread but also in this political cartoon contest.
Even though I'm a staunch, evil Republican, I'm also a staunch conservationist. I do not accept the extremist, global warming theories that Al Gore and the majority of Slashdotters take as gospel. Even so, I make sure to recycle everything from plastic to office paper, newspapers, and cardboard; I make sure to keep my car properly tuned and maintained to maximize my fuel efficiency; I complain to corporations who make products that can be recycled but aren't, such as the Brita water filters; but I guarantee that I will be lumped in with the anti-environmentalist crowd because of my political affiliation and because I think that Al Gore is a freakin' nutcase with too much time on his hands and too much exporsure to abuse.
That's the problem with Slashdot and topics that intermingle politics with science. Anyone with any inclination to doubt the extremist beliefs of people like Al Gore and TripMaster Monkey is automatically tagged as anti-environment, which is complete BS, just like anyone who says that we need to lower pollution and sign Kyoto (which I am fervently against because of the way it singles out the U.S.) is suddenly tagged as a tree hugger.
And to prove that even further, I guarantee that I'll be modded as troll or flamebait, even though there are thousands if not tens of thousands of posts in Slashdot's archive to prove this. After all, anyone who dares to challenge the Slashdot groupthink is vilified because that's an acceptable practice, although the opposite is not. So be it.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to take my over-flowing, recycling bin out for collection tomorrow and take several bags of shredded office paper down to my township's collection facility. Yessir, just another evil, Republican doing his part to further ruin the environment.
*sigh*
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Every week is a new Bush-bashing 'cartoon'.
Funny? No, dammit!
These cartoons really only seem to entertain the cartoonist! Cheap vessels for the dispensing of the artists' own radically left-wing politcal agendas.
There is significant evidence for global warming, but less showing that it is caused by people.
Nope, sorry Rupert. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that yes, global warming is happening, and yes, it is being caused by humans. And it has been this way for quite some time now.
It seems to me that scientists are politically pressured to support global warming, just like evolution
You forget which party dominates all three branches of government? How many trillion dollar industries with enourmous lobbying power are supporting global warming?
Regardless of the quality of science in his writings, the interesting thing for me was the turnaround in perception of him. For years, I thought a number of his stories and the films made of them were quite good, but the science was iffy at best. Even so, he seemed to be well thought of as putting forward "cautionary tales" highlighting the hubris of science, scientists and capitalists who myopically care for nothing but their own ends (the owner in the book version of Jurassic Park for example).
Now that he's written a novel that's critical of a different group, what we hear is quite different. We now have entire websites dedicated to telling us how he's been a science distorting hack all along.
Amazing the change in perspective. Guess it pays to think about who you criticize before you do it.
I can do science me!
When I spent a few months over in England, I totally fell in love with that show!! (Brainiac)
"Congratulations, Boots. Your robot has become self-aware. You're a daddy now." -- Dr. Rho Bowman
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=2 0051115
That poli-cartoon was from November 15th, 2005.
Still relevant, no?
and people complained about the cost and inconvenience of seatbelts too.
you have to prove the benefits to these companies outweigh the costs before making this claim that it will "cost us a lot", also keep in mind that it "costs a lot" to purchase a home, but many homes build equity which also "gain us a lot".
cleaner burning plants mean fuels go futher, as less of the fuel is exiting the chimneys/smokestacks.
a company which uses less resources or uses those resources more efficiently also incurs less costs.
I take it that you've never been to Bangladesh.
Paper can protect you from alpha particles.
Those who seek conflict only search to reaffirm their own personal beliefs about the world.
We, the thinking people of Planet Earth, didn't seek this conflict. We thought the war was over. We thought we'd won. Then, you guys reanimated the zombie of Creationism and tried to rewrite the books of medicine, biology, sociology, and even history by copying older, dumber texts onto their leaves.
So you can go wave that particular hand somewhere else, pal. When there's a conflict between faith and reality, it's always the former's doing.
So, after all that reactionary vitriol, do you have any actual counterarguments against hispoint that environmentalism has become an urban religion? Or are you just hating on someone who disagrees with you? You sound like the same reactionary loons who attacked the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, because he dared speak out against the hegemony of thinking going on in the environmentalist movement.
Frankly, Crichton makes a lot of very valid points, particularly about man's ingrained rush to craft a religious viewpoint around the idea that there was once a pristine world marred by man's sins, and only through ritual can he be saved 'lest he befall to an impending armageddon. Environmentalists behave just like religious nuts when you are critical of their beliefs.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I don't know, it's been my experience that environmentalists act JUST LIKE religious nuts who won't accept any contradicting facts. I mean, can YOU explain why the average global temperature hasn't risen since 1998, yet environmentalists are still crying and whining about rising global temperatures? It doesn't make any sense. Crichton's essay hits the nail on the head.
His speech is nothing but a litany of half-truths, distortions, unbacked assertions, and ad hominem attacks.
You should cite examples and explain next time. Just calling something a "litany" of bad things without explanation makes it look like you're dismissing based on your own bias. I think Crichton struck a nerve when he pointed out that environmentalism has become an urban religion for people who want to feel like they're close to nature. Also, so many people have been raised since elementary school to believe in global warming and recycling, that the very idea of someone suggesting we don't blindly follow those alarmist viewpoints just sends off car alarms in their heads and makes them react with bitterness the way you did in your post.
By the way, second-hand smoke HAS been found to be harmless. Studies have shown no illnesses or deaths related to it, and no proof has ever come out supporting the idea that it's as bad or worse as smoking yourself. It was an ultra left-wing scare drummed up by the media. The fact you actually call him an "asshole" for describing what is now accepted knowledge is amazing to me. Are you one of those guys who thinks city councils should force all businesses to ban smoking, even though it should be up to business owners to decide how they want to run their businesses? Why don't we just ban all music I don't like as well? And we'll ban any loud colors, because loud colors send me into an epileptic shock!
How about antibiotic restistant bacteria?
If evolution occured by survival of the fittest, you would expect something like the genetic method of inheritence (which was later found) and that genetic changes and similarities would match the pace of the fossil record. This is almost universally true. So predictions have matched what was found.
When a new small frog is found in the jungle with bright colors that make it stand out, evolution would predict that it has a defense mechanism. Such animals have been found to be poisonous.
A classic was a madagascar flower that was 18" deep. At the time, it was mentioned to Darwin as a flaw in evolution -> how could something so strange have evolved, it couldn't have a purpose. Darwin replied that there must be a moth with an 18" probuscus that could drink the nectar of the flower. A few years ago someone finally filmed the moth and proved Darwin's prediction correct.
The power of selection can explain how the immune system can fuction without intelligence.
When something like the high occurrence of sickel cell anemia or cystic fibrosis is found, we conclude that there must be an evolutionary advantage somewhere. This was found in resistance to diseases by heterozygous individuals.
There are many more. Like the evolution of pesticide resistance in insects and that it can be controlled by having sacrifice crops that are left to create a population without the selected pressure. Or disease virulence. Here's one for the future. Ebola is too deadly to humans to spread through them effectively. Therefore, it must exist in another host or it would become extinct. I'll bet on them finding one.
I was not referring to political pressure from from the government, but from academic and scientific organizations.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
And once sea level rises, and weather systems move as a result of increased heat, are those still going to be your best farmlands ? Or are they going to dry up and become deserts ?
And what will you do if, say, the best farmlands of China turn out to be too low and are buried underwater ? Do you think that the chinese are going to simply starve silently, or are they going to try to take yours ?
I see my original post was modded Overrated. I guess the pro-industry astroturfers are out again tonight. Makes me wonder if Slashdot was given any "donations" to make the two mods unmetamoderable...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Agreed. I also never thought "Planet of the Apes" was a future documentary.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Scores of UCS members marking all of the posts on /. that are critical of them as Flamebait!
:-)
(Don't beleive me? Set your filter to -1, almost every critical post has been abusively modded down. This one will be too I bet!)
----
Leftists just can't take a joke. Or the truth either come to think of it....
I don't know, it's been my experience that environmentalists act JUST LIKE religious nuts who won't accept any contradicting facts.
I suppose a complete idiot could see things that way. No doubt your crazy strawman exists somewhere, but the simple fact is that almost all scientists agree that global warming is happening, and humans are the cause. The ones that don't are usually on the energy industires payroll.
"You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" is from the gospel according to John (chapter 8 verse 32 if you want to be nerdy about it).
That's one of the most concise and profound quotes ever.
Free from tyranny, because tyrants rule by lies.
Free from diseases which spread by ignorance.
Free from the hopeless poverty of subsistence farming, as the truth about mining geology and mechanics was slowly and painfully acquired.
To quote from the Wikipedia entry entry on the story...
Here here to that! Micahel Crichton's works are disturbingly close to science, without actually being accurate (that is the danger - that they are confused with science by young/uneducated minds).
The essay you link is nothing but an attack on the argument by attacking the source of the argument as being from zealots. He accuses the environmental movement of being responsible for massive deaths.
Ad hominem attacks are highly effective. Why is this? Is it a quirk of human nature "I hate this guy so I don't listen to anything he says," or is it actually rational? Think about this for a moment:
If one takes a Bayesian view of probability (probability represents one's degree of belief in a proposition, not a frequency of occurrance), then if one is a rational Bayesian agent, one must incorporate all "relevant" information when ascertaining the belief of a hypothesis, through the chaining of probabilities. Starting with a prior on a statement (unfortunately what prior to choose is often unclear, and is perhaps even arbitrary), one modifies the belief by multiplying by conditional probabilities as gathered by evidence.
One can easily make the claim (the "proof" for this shall be left as an exercise to the reader) that given the sum of experiences one has collected over their lifetime, (direct experience or transitive experience through discussion, books, and other media) one can infer that there is indeed a conditional probability connecting the probability that entity A is a "zealot" and that information from entity A is incorrect.
Bayesian reasoning/inference differs significantly from "pure" boolean reasoning in that it captures this information in a way tha tis actually useful in real life. For instance, the statement "if someone is pointing a gun at you, they will kill you" is obviously false under boolean logic systems, however in real life it is prudent to infer that it is likely enough that htey will kill you that you should take it into account in your planning process. Similarly with the "ad hominem" attacks. The following statements are all valid in a Bayesian framework (when one takes into account the independence of these propositions from other information known about entity A):
All of these statements are fairly vague (I'm sure one can find a far more rigorous discussion of this somewhere online), however I trust you can see that independent of all other information on Entity A these statements are correct.
That leads me to conclude (in an albeit simplified fashion) that because information on a subject/individual/particular point is highly limited (indeed, with things like global warming, etc, even having a PhD in the field is only a reasonable start, not a comprehensive, authoritative educaiton), one must consider all information about an argument (and weight it according to statistical correlation) when one makes an inference (once again assuming one is a Bayesian, which is a strong assumption, but definitely closer to human reasoning under uncertainty than pure boolean logic, or
Well when you cut off the rhetoric from the extreme sides of the argument, in my experience you find that this opposition is less a knee-jerk partisanhood and more a disagreement about the proper method of addressing the situation. You'll see democrats tending to prefer strong (perhaps excessively so) protective legislation, while republicans advocate market solutions or at least doing some more research (which is code for "not doing a damn thing"). (And of course there's merits to both viewpoints, which we don't want to get into here). Basically, though, you really only see the true distinction when you get away from the people who editorialize on the subject without really understanding the issue.
...but is it art?
Please do not use the term "junk science." It was invented by tobacco companies to characterize research that showed that second-hand smoking causes cancer, and is still a favorite of industry-funded pundits.
According to consumer reports: "as far as we have been able to trace, the phrase "junk science" has been coined by those practicing public relations and lobbying activities on behalf of some companies in certain industries--particularly the plastics, chemical, biotechnology, and pesticide industries. While its coiners may have legitimate grounds for debate on some issues, the phrase has been used far too often to discredit honest public interest organizations and legitimate scientists who express concerns about consumer safety and environmental risks."
Second hand smoke has in no way, shape or form been found to be harmless. Most independant studies have only increased the claims of how bad smoking is to the general public. The only studies that say otherwise are generally funded by tobacco companies. In Britain its been shown that the percentage of non smoking bar staff dying of lung cancer is far higher than that for the non-smoking general population hence we are banning smoking in pubs.
The amount of evidence against tobacco is quite damning yet people cling onto non-independant reports in hope of justifying the unjustifiable.
Unfortunately GW will not wait for proof strong enough for those that want to dig their heads into the sand and wouldn't believe it under any circumstance. The theory is quite solid in general, the details of what it means is sketchy but that CO2 warms the planet is pretty much beyond dispute.
And without going on a daylong linkhunt, they are passing bad information about condom effectiveness, intimidating non-profit organizations which do not toe the party line on reproductive issues, and denying USAID funds to overseas orgs which even mention abortion, or distribute condoms as part of family planning efforts. (Imagine sending $15B to Africa to fight AIDS without distributing or even even mentioning condoms! Talk about throwing good money away...It's like fighting fires without water, it's that foolish.)
Hold on, I'm going to have to yell. THEY DO MENTION CONDOMS, YOU MISINFORMED PERSON!
The 15 billion dollars is exempt from the gag rule (called the "Mexico City Policy" by its supporters).
Now, perhaps they should spend less of the money on treatment and more on prevention. (I think the proportions are 80% : 20%.)
But what you are saying is a lie. The US has given grants of well over a billion dollars to programs that promote proper condom use in Africa.
A faded ink pen drawing of a half naked black man sitting on an examination bench. A white doctor c.1940's stands by him making a note on a clipboard. Dialog caption line at the bottom; "Doctor: You're lucky to have been specially selected for this."
Scanned and a secondary caption in raster rendered font at the top; "Tuskegee"
If you want to be denigrated and flamed hysterically just question even the tiniest aspect of Global Warming©®TM.
>I mean, can YOU explain why the average global temperature hasn't risen since 1998
n tal_Temperature_Record.png . It shows that the uprend resumed after 2000. Early results are that 2005 will tie or exceed 1998.
Now, why 1998 as a baseline?
Was it the first year for which records were available? Was it some round number of years ago?
Or was it picked because it was an outlier, an above-the-trend hot year, so that people bent on misleading rather than illuminating could point out that later data points weren't as high?
Picking an unrepresentative starting point is a classic move. Start measuring high-tech investment in 1999 and you can "prove" that the tech industry is in decline. Start with a recession like 73-74 and you can "prove" that Jimmy Carter caused economic growth.
A good book, with even better examples of how to pick starting points to convey falsehoods, is "How to Lie With Statistics". A more truthful look is parked at Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Short_Instrume
I predict that Tom Toles is going to end up winning, assuming that he enters. He has lampooned the anti-science politician on numerous occasions, and in very funny ways.
This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
If you want to win, simply copy this approach to political cartooning.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
If you don't want political interference in science, don't use government funds in research.
Those who accept the king's gold must dance to his tune.
It was in fact banned because of its effects on animals, particularly eggshells.
Correct, though I'd amend that to "supposed effects on eggshells", as subsequent investigation disproved this claim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Yes, because it's critical that the opinions of self-important nerds be slightly harder to see.
I think it's more along the lines of how his latest book was received by people who believe it to be accurate. The whole thing about how GWB et al bring up State of Fear as being a good case against global warming. When people start putting forth fiction as truth, then it becomes necessary to remind people that it's fiction. The more vocal the proponents, the more vocal the opposition needs to be.
What are you talking about exactly? UCS's opposition to the Reagan Strategic Defense Initiative on scientific grounds? That hardly amounts to support of Soviet geopolitical aims, no matter how you slice it. Perhaps I am ignorant of something else? if so, please enlighten me; otherwise I think the assertion is nonsense.
I am not a climatologist, but I have spent time with the solar physics community. From the records we look at, there is a relation between solar activity and climate, but no one outside of the field will listen. We can even point to evidence of rising temperatures on Mars and Jupiter.
I don't know why global warming is happening, but I weary of people presenting part of the evidence, and then shouting down any who don't completely agree.
We are talking about todays political climate.
And how is this different from the political climate of 400 years ago?
The people change, the lines on the map change, but politics never changes.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
While the chicken pox vaccine is not a misunderstood, it seems we are trading a major childhood inconvenience for the possibility of a deadly disease as an adult. Don't get me wrong, some small scale testing would be in order, but they are recommending that every 2 year old get the vaccine. They don't know how long it will last, and they are hoping that if a booster is needed in adulthood that A) adults will go and get the booster, and B) Adults (or the elderly) can get the booster without contracting a now deadly disease.
Even the literature that the doctors hand out give 'saving money by not missing work' to care for a sick child as a primary reason to give the vaccine to children.
You link to Wikipedia as though it supports your claim, but I cannot find anything on that page suggesting that the eggshell-thinning theory has been disproved.
In fact, the second reference from the wikipedia article goes to epa.gov and states that DDT adversely affects avian and mammalian reproduction by eggshell thinning, infertility, and embryo- and fetotoxicity. Have I missed something?
Don't you hate meta-sigs?
"The subject of the cartoons must relate to political interference in science in the federal government."
Inviting an opinionated fiction writer to "advise a senate committe on science facts" is both funny and sad at the same time. I think a cartoon that bounces the ridicule back on to Crichton and the puppet senators is exactly what the UCS are looking for.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The Ministry of Unknown Science laughs at the Union of Concerned Scientists. TMOUS has already solved the problems with NASA by doing what most other corporations and government agencies do these days: They Hire Mexicans!
That's right, amigos! Be all you can be! Be a Mexinaut!
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
"Or current generations whose economic interests *will* be significantly affected?"
Not trying to pick on you personally but why is it that economic models that predict dire cosequences are taken as gospel, yet the more scientifically robust climate models are taken with a grain of salt?
Dogma of any kind is dangerous, inviting a fiction writer to give scientific evidence to a senate commitee would seem to be the opposite to "playing it safe".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Perhaps it is because he is now advising the senate about the "scientific facts" of climate change.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"Environmentalists behave just like religious nuts when you are critical of their beliefs."
I would say all humans react pretty much the same when you attack their beliefs, the reason I dislike Crichton is the psudeo-science he sprouts to the senate as fact.
BTW: You also betray your own bias and ignorance by building a straw man and calling it "the environmentalist movement".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
On the subject of scientific bluntness let me just say you are talking out of your arse and dribbling shit all over the place. The last line of your post only confims that you are more concerned with parinoid political dogma than with robust scientific findings.
Some facts on volcanos and climate.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It is disingenuous to call Al Gore's global warming stance "fringe." He's more centrist on the topic, among those who have actually bothered to research it. You want to see fringe, find one of those freaks that thinks we should wage war or engage in forced sterilization to reduce population. That's fringe.
Secondly, all you denialists who carry on about whether or not we are warming and/or whether or not humans are the cause do so by ignoring all the other effects of increased CO2 (the increase in C02, by the way, is undeniably of human origin) Like just what are we supposed to do when we kill off critical links on the ocean food chain due to ocean acidification as that CO2 dissolves and entire ocean biospheres collapse? It is, after all, elready beginning to happen with the coral bleaching.
Beuler? Beuler?
Someone had to do it.
aah f*@#^ US only :(
RUPERT! I TOLD YOU TO WATCH THE BAGS! You were looking at the boys again, WEREN'T YOU.
Or to put it more simply, the Environmental Science group has a louder voice than the Dinosaur Regeneration Science one.
Hmm. I wonder why?
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
So most of them are not actually scientists and how "augmenting scientific analysis" and "scientific integrity" can be compatible is anybodies guess. They also have ulterior motives that will inevitably colour their "science", and they are even admitting it, showing their ignorance. Sorry, but they are a bunch of crackpots.
of how modern people's understanding of the bible have little to do with the text itself, or how people understood it in the past.
The fact is, Christianity isn't really one continuous set of beliefs, so much as numerous sects based around the same set of "proofs." People take the miracles recorded in the bible, the prophesies, and the various grand moral pronouncements and pseudo-philosophical ramblings, and they use it as their proof for... whatever the hell it is they happen to believe. Some people use it to justify their superstitions, some their codes of ethics, and some just use it to justify their existence. The bible leads some people to believe in a vengeful god, and some to believe in a merciful god. Those who believe that the person worshiping the vengeful god and the person worshiping the merciful god are worshiping the *same* god are kidding themselves. If what defines one god contradicts what defines the other, they cannot be the same. Just because you got the idea for the god from the same book, does not make them the same. It is the characteristics and not the name of the god you worship that is meaningful.
Regardless of whether the bible describes myths, or actual events, it seems clear that *christianity* itself, as a single religion is a myth. It seems more accurate to describe Christianity as a multitude of religions, who happen to have the same prophets. That's not necessarily a bad thing... but it does mean that it is not sufficient to use the bible as a reference when trying to establish common ground with other christians. At the very least, a certain amount of real philosophy has to be done, (scripture quoting doesn't count as philosophy!!) to establish moral imperatives and common beliefs. People who go to the bible as a first source aren't going to be particularly effective at establishing consensus with people who have differing views.
In this country you will obey gravity, its the LAW!
Honestly. For example, USAID, the World Health Organisation and the World Bank support DDT spraying programs around the world.
Supply shortages? Looks like this company wants to sell you 200 litre drums of the stuff: .
In the end, the wholescale spraying of DDT has been banned because it is a very valuable weapon in the fight against malaria that has been rendered ineffective in many areas because that spraying has made the local mosquito population resistant (e.g. Sri Lanka). Keeping it for use on bednets and spraying inside houses is good science and good policy. Rachel Carson herself advocated the limited use of DDT in "The Silent Spring":
'Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can" rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity."'
Tom
Based on the book, so this is disputed.
See also the cited Reason article.
The article further goes on to point out that egg shell thinning in birds had started happening 50 years before the introduction of DDT.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Isn't it queer that none of this was ever an issue when it was the Clinton Administration that was subverting and politicizing science?
Funny how all of these "concerned scientists" were never concerned when it was Left-wingers that were doing it....
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
One more abuse of science by "liberals" (which I take to mean in the sense that the word is misused in the United States):
Dr. Arthur Kellerman. This guy is the grand-daddy of them all with his "research" claiming to show that "a gun in the home is X times more likely to kill a loved one than prevent a crime".
As I said in another post, it's strange how these "concerned scientists" were never concerned over THAT. There CAN'T be a political agenda at work, can there? Why no, these are impartial, dispassionate scientists here... <cough cough>
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
Of the stories I have read on the Bush administration's war against science, this New Yorker article http://www.wesjones.com/specter2.htm is the best, all the more devastating because it is scrupulously fair.
For a rebuttal with actual science, go to realclimate.org.
Mostly, those of us who work in the global warming field know that there are lots of uncertainties still remaining to be resolved about feedbacks, emissions projections, and oceanic processes, but most of the skeptics running around talking about "Mars is warming!" and "it has cooled since 1998!" and "you guys were global cooling fanatics 30 years ago!" and all the rest of that are just repeated long-ago debunked junk, and it is very frustrating to deal with all the noise, and so yes, we try and shout such arguments down.
And there is a _lot_ of industry sponsored junk being promulgated on this issue. And the current administration is very tightly connected with some of the biggest junk-pushers.
Twenty years ago, the news was the opposite. Newsmagazines like Time and Newsweek regularly featured articles intoning "doom and gloom" that a new ICE AGE was upon us, the result of human pollution.
Of course, nothing of the kind of catastrophe they predicted then ever came to pass--but folks who benefit from the Chicken Little newsbusiness never seem to own up to it when they are WRONG.
Likewise, ten years ago the prediction was that 20% of the world would die by the year 2010 from AIDS. So far, they're about 10,000% off-target.
But again, no one ever gets the blame when Chicken Little's screams turn out to be wrong.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Without RTFA, my first thought is why the hell are idiot celebrities in charge of choosing finalists? Unless these celebrities are also scientists. After all, the cheeseholes at VH1 keep telling me that Apathy is Lethal and we've gotta do something about AIDS killing 3rd-world kids, but take a look for yourself: where does AIDS fit on this list? I'll give you a hint: it's nowhere near 1. And what is? Severe rotavirus diarrhea. What's that you say? Sheryl Crow never told you about that one.
Honestly, I'm sick of those commercials telling me that I'm not doing enough about AIDS; not only have I done more than enough to help, there are frankly much bigger fish to go after if you really want to save lives.
If celebrities are the initial filtering mechanism, then this entire contest is moot.
I am not denying global warming - I am just not convinced it is anthoropogenic. For instance, there as a period of around a 150 years called the Maunder Minimum where there were very few if any sunspots, and this correlates with the "Mini-Ice Age" in Europe. There were 2 previous minimums, called the Wolff and Spoerer (sp?) minimums. And this is correlated with similar changes on earth. Right now, the sun is more active than it has been in a very long time. So either we have one very big coincidence, or something is going on that is not understood. None of us have any idea how it is happening, because the actual total solar irradiance seems to be pretty constant, though the UV portion has increased. But that should not make too much of a difference. I agree that this administration is treating this in a dreadful manner. But please stop marginalizing opposing opinions. I am not saying I have all the answers, because I dont'. I could even be wrong. But I would like to see an honest debate on the matter, and not just a lot of shouting down of others. Thanks for the link on Mars. Is there a similar one for Jupiter?
Penn and Teller present that same fact in episode 5 of season 1 of "Penn and Teller: Bullshit!" Here's a synopsis from tv.com:
It has been a while since I watched it but I remember that they don't claim that second hand smoke is not bad for you. Instead they show that the wide spread claims that it is bad for you are based on an executive summary written by a political appointee which was not supported by the data in the report. In short, you may be right that second hand smoke is bad for you, but if you don't do the research to actually find out whether and how much of an effect it has, then you are just as bad as creationists.I watched Chrichton explain his viewpoint on a late night talk show. In the few minutes he talked about it he seemed to be taking a reactionary stance against people like you who attack and namecall based on your unsupported assumptions. If you want to sway the middle-of-the-roaders like me, you need to provide scientific evidence rather than conjecture blown way out of proportion by people with extreme views.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
In short, you may be right that second hand smoke is bad for you, but if you don't do the research to actually find out whether and how much of an effect it has, then you are just as bad as creationists.
Here you go:
Epidemological study on the correlations between exposure to SHS and severe childhood asthma attacks.
A study showing the increased risk of developing heart disease from SHS.
An analysis of 37 studies on SHS and lung cancer.
Is that evidence enough for you? If not, you can play for days on Google's Scholar search putting in "second hand smoke" and various diseases caused by it. You will find next to no studies claiming that SHS is harmless. Much like global warming, you have to step outside the realm of experts on the subject to find "debunkers." I'm not sure what sort of logical process would invoke such a strong skepticism over the idea that the same chemical stew that kills smokers might also have effects on the people not holding the cigarette without questioning the effect on smokers themselves. Skepticism's healthy, but there's a limit.
In the few minutes he talked about it he seemed to be taking a reactionary stance against people like you who attack and namecall based on your unsupported assumptions. If you want to sway the middle-of-the-roaders like me, you need to provide scientific evidence rather than conjecture blown way out of proportion by people with extreme views.
Hrm. It seems interesting that a "middle of the roader" will hold me to standards of intellectual integrity that you won't hold Crichton to. I mean, nowhere do I see him making any support for his assertions (which is the bulk of what I actually wrote about, if you go back and actually read my post). Also, I do provide links to articles thoroughly debunking the assertions he makes in his books (even though there's nothing directly refutable in his empty statements of "they're just wrong" in his speeches). The best he ever gets is, "Scientists were wrong on this other completely unrelated subject material, so why trust them on this?" But, hey, I'm the one not backing myself up, right?
If you are simply asking for supporting evidence of global warming, then please go and read the many articles in RealClimate's archive. For a more layman's approach, go see the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." There is no lack of consensus within the climate research community.
If you're actually attacking my assertions on SHS and not global warming, then fine. I did not back them up initially because I thought it was freaking obvious and because my post was excessively long at that point anyway. It was pretty rushed and had some nasty grammar errors because of cutting and pasting sentences into a more cohesive whole. (That's also how I lost the bit about DDT being banned because of effects on wildlife.) In my experience, the only people who seriously question SHS's effects on others are smokers in denial. Why bother trying to reach them? They've built up a lifetime of mental and emotional defenses against the ramifications of their actions, and no amount of truth will reach them.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
...and the customary non-condom-usage....not the AIDS.
Blar.
Therefore, I don't see why we should think that an unknown mechanism (namely effect of sunspot variation on temperature) would be a better explanation. The Maunder minimum is certainly interesting, but I was under the impression that it could be explained by known natural variations (one of which was the presumption due to other proxies that there was less solar irradiance which may be related to the lack of sunspots - sadly, we don't have direct measures of solar irradiance back then). In the past 2 decades of climate research, there have been various papers published on sunspot to climate correlations, and most of them have proved statistically invalid (the 1991 study by Friis-Christiansen and Lassen, was widely cited by skeptics for a while until its flawed foundations were shown).
So 1) I am not convinced that sunspots have that big an effect on temperature outside of their correlation with actual irradiance, which we can directly measure and already do take into account (though not my area, so I could be wrong), and 2) if you want to attribute the last few decades of warming to a poorly understood sunspot-climate link, you really have to first explain why the forcing mechanisms we do understand involving GHG concentrations aren't having any effect.
Re: Jupiter: I was under the impression that there were significant changes in circulation patterns (eg, little red eye) leading to local large temperature variations, but I hadn't hear about any evidence of general solar-induced warming?