Slashdot Mirror
The Problem With Congress's Scientific Illiterates
Lasrick (2629253) writes "Brian Merchant at Motherboard examines the March 26th House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology's 2015 budget request hearing. White House adviser Dr. John Holdren addressed the committee to defend funding for science programs. Video clips show comments that are difficult to believe, when you hear them. From the article: '"So, when you guys do your research, you start with a scientific—what do they call it—postulate or theory, and you work from that direction forward, is that right?" Representative Randy Weber (R-TX) said. "So, I'm just wondering how that related, for example, to global warming and eventual global cooling." He paused to make a joke about getting the scientists' cell phone number so he could call to ask when to buy a coat, before concluding that science just isn't up to the task.'"
Can't understand you my man, get the cock out of your mouth!
"And this is why we fail."
Yep. That's why you fail.
We KNOW that the survey that reported a 97% consensus was, in fact, bogus.
75 or so cherry-picked responses out of a 10,000-person survey is not anything a responsible statistician would call valid.
And the "expert" doesn't even try to defend it. He does a fine job of moving the goalposts, but he doesn't support the actual claim at all. Because, of course, he knows it's bogus.
We also know, from the science, that there is no significant evidence that "climate change" has been increasing either the number or severity of extreme weather events. And so on.
The real question here is why a politician is actually asking perfectly legitimate questions, but is being labeled stupid on Slashdot for doing so.
This is the domain of ideologues, not science.
"This is about science in general, not AGW in particular."
The video clip being discussed was about AGW, and it was the cause of people saying here that politicians are stupid. Claiming otherwise won't get you anywhere.
"But if you want to make it about AGW, the science is not based on surveys, nor is it based on computer models."
I didn't "make it" about anything. The videoclip was about AGW, and OP's post was (largely) about the video clip. And the video clip, in turn, was largely about the survey. You're trying to move the goalposts here.
But aside from that, you're still wrong. The computer models are supposed to be based on the science, not the other way around.
"It is based on old school physics that's been developing over centuries."
It is based on old-school physics that have been discredited. Fourier's conclusions about his friend's experiments turned out to be wrong... the experimental apparatus in fact formed a real greenhouse. But... greenhouse gas theory is not based based on a the kind of heating that occurs in real greenhouses, which is known to be the prevention of convective cooling. Greenhouse gas theory is completely different, having to do with trapping of radiation. Which has been thoroughly discredited. (Just one example of said discrediting.)
Don't try to debate me on the science, guy. I've got you beat. I can keep shooting you down all day.
"What each upcoming season's weather will be we aren't sure."
Since we know what's happening to weather, we have a pretty good idea.
"But we are sure our changes to the atmosphere are warming the planet..."
Speak for yourself. I don't know any such thing, and I've seen A LOT of data that say it isn't so.
"All your denialist microquibbles, character assassinations, and FUD are red herrings."
My "denialist microquibble" was about why a politician who was asking perfectly legitimate questions about things that are in fact questionable, is being labeled stupid for doing so. Calling people stupid for asking questions is not the way science works.
"It's basically accepted by everyone except one political faction in one scientifically illiterate country."
That's the most hilarious comment you've made yet. And you call ME "denialist". Wow. I must remember to inquire about what brand of blinders you're using, because they seem to be good ones.
And by the way: here are a few of the peer-reviewed papers by those people you claim don't exist.
Trying to move the goalposts won't work either.
Evolution HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. Adaptation is common. Adaptation is not evolution. Evolution is fish into dog. Adaptation is dog moving from Denver to Jamaica.