You want an opinion from a leading scientist?
-
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6009/1287.full?rss=1
By Bruce Alberts, Editor-in-Chief of Science, he published this letter 5 days ago. I think it's relevant.
Over the long run, any nation that makes crucial decisions while ignoring science is doomed. Consider, for example, the decision about how much arsenic should be allowed in drinking water supplies. There is no one “right answer” to this or many other policy questions, but it is critical that national legislation be based on what science knows about potential harm. It is therefore disturbing that so many lawmakers elected to the new U.S. Congress reject the overwhelming scientific consensus with respect to human-induced climate change. It will be difficult to make wise choices with such attitudes. The question now facing the United States is not only how to effectively reinject the facts of climate science back into the core of this particular debate, but also how to ensure that good science underlies all legislative decisions.
For 12 years, I served as the president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. As part of a larger nongovernmental organization known as the National Academies, it produces more than 200 reports a year, aimed at making the current scientific consensus on important issues available to policy-makers and the public. In major reports released this spring, the National Academies strongly reiterated its position that climate change, caused largely by human activities, poses significant risks to the world's future.* This conclusion is nevertheless challenged by numerous politicians, as well as by a substantial fraction of the public. There is only one effective solution for this type of problem: Scientists must make both science education and community outreach a much more central part of the scientific culture.
Most Americans have never met a scientist, and despite having been “taught science” at school, most have no real idea of how a scientific consensus is reached through continuous open debate and experiment. Every adult should have a base of scientific understanding about how the world works. But understanding the process through which scientific knowledge develops is equally critical. By the end of any introductory college science class—which can be an adult's final exposure to science—a student should have a realistic understanding of the nature of science. Scientists are taught to challenge authority, and their responsible challenges to a consensus help science advance. Thus, adults should expect to find some scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on an issue. And they should appreciate why a strong scientific consensus, such as that about climate change, must nevertheless form the basis for making wise personal and community decisions, representing by far the best bet for predicting the future consequences of present actions.
In addition to education, an energetic community outreach to schools, the public, and decision-makers is key. Both established scientists and those in training can be highly effective in putting a human face on science and conveying optimistic, honest attitudes toward grappling with society's problems. Week-long science festivals, to which local institutions based on science and engineering contribute ideas and personnel, should become an annual event at hundreds of sites around the nation. And programs that encourage and facilitate outreach into nonscientific communities need to become a standard part of every university and science-based industrial establishment.
The environment in which decisions are made in a democracy will always be highly politicized, but it is crucial that both sides of any argument pay close attention both to what science knows and how that knowledge has been gained. Attaining this goal in every nation will require that scientists vigorously reach out to their communities, informing them not only about their new discoveries, but also about the path they took to get there.
Cal, this is exactly why I am trying to hammer home the importance of the overwhelming majority of scientists reaching the same conclusion of the matter. You obviously don't understand how science works, yet you claim that your scientists have settled the matter of the debate, which is just downright false. I can't even say that about proponents of the issue. Your views on the topic just reek of ignorance. And you're trying to tell me, a student of the sciences, that the people I'm learning from are all completely wrong and lying. Science is going to be my life, dude, so it's like nails on a chalkboard when I hear your rants about how incorrect something is. If you think it's incorrect, then get a bachelors of science, then get a PhD, then you can go and try to prove your claims (and this goes for the xxxxing writers in the media, too). Until then, your talking points are moot.
You really need to educate yourself about an issue before you go spouting off shit that you claim is the be-all, end-all. It's gonna be decades, if ever, the debate is finished.
-
Well, dipsheet, I posted SCIENTISTS' QUOTES on what THEIR STUDIES SAY.
Your really ignorant snort that it was only a journalist makes me wonder if you
aren't just trying to be funny or something.
I used to know a PHD, Worked with him. He was arrogant like you, from a top upper crust in India.
I wrote a program, automating the calculation of an extremely complex scientific algorithm on plastic tensile strength,
given various colorants, and additives, etc., like plasticizers and UV stabilizers....
He kept getting the "right" answer, and exploded in indignation when I explained how I interpreted
the algorithm. He "ordered" me to change it, and I refused. I said I'd research the algorithm, with the VP of R&D,
but I firmly believed in my interpretation.
He went to the VP of R&D and said he was insulted that I disagreed with him, especially when I had no advanced degree,
and wanted me fired.
But, the VP called me into his office, laughing. He said he always interpreted the very long, complex scientific
algorithm exactly as I did. I had walked through it with him on a white board. This program was very important
to the company - it was extremely important in the competitive advantages we had.
The VP, after meeting with the PHD, contacted a leading plastics colorant scientist... a major author of books on the subject.
He interpreted the algorithm exactly as I did.
It took two months for the PHD to want to meet me in the VP's office, and apologize. He took all three of us out to dinner.
The Indian restaurant had this pink chicken that was prepared in a secret brine...
So stick your "I have education, so you suck and are not allowed to have an opinion different from mine".
It's been tried before. Didn't fly back then, either. So many of you college kids have way too much arrogance,
and way too little people skills, way too little common sense, and very little wisdom.
The journalist you mocked, was QUOTING SCIENTISTS, knucklehead.
17,000 scientists disagree with you and your precious algore, the big phoney dummy.
And 33,000 scientists disagree with you and your scientists.
There are scientists who insisted their names be taken off those papers.
I'll telling you, I don't give a freakin how big a majority of scientists who honestly believe
in mmgw. I'm also telling you, to take your stupid arrogant self, and go read the studies
and quotes from many of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of CLIMATE MAJOR SCIENTISTS who say the evidence does NOT PROVE MAN's ACTIVITIES, CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING.
And your cya baloney about climategate? bogus. I'm not buyin that either.
I posted a major scientist who says we appear to be in for a 30 mini ice age.
Don't pull your holierthanthou beetlejuice act on me.
I had plenty of science classes in college - basic biology, genetics, geology, physics, chemistry. I was
in secondary education with a English major/Speech minor, but was switching to a science minor.
But I ran afoul of arrogant, dishonest leftist profs, about 3 of them, so I enlisted to go to school on the GI bill.
I know plenty enough to know what scientists I prefer to believe. And those scientists say too many of your scientists' conclusions
are politically self-serving, corrupt, or badly proven, and/or biased toward the grants that certain orgs give them.
You lib meatheads think that nobody is allowed to disagree with you. Vast majority doesn't make FACT when tens of thousands of other scientists say very differently.
Here's a quarter, go take a long walk on a short pier.
-
No, again, just no. You're quoting non-scientific papers and getting numbers from them to rebuke numbers from scientific papers. If that is how you believe science works, then you're just plain wrong.
-
Well, science does NOT WORK, when your progressive "scientists" have to look through hundreds of trees,
in a million tree foriest, to find ONE tree that supports your political mmgw theory.
That, and skewing other cherry picked evidence to support the same baloney.
And science does NOT work, when other scientists who prove the theory to have serious flaws, and those scientists
are attacked with character assassination and threats.
You don't want science. You want political $$$$$$$$ to be taxed from those not in college.
You are a fool, if you think your attending college makes you ruler of the world.
You think it's cool to be like liberal whacko "state capilatists" ( world socialism) who want to
use mmgw as a gigantic stepping stone to political success?
It isn't. I beleive you are going to need a lot of luck in your studies, if you can't reason any more than that,
because you don't seem to have ANY kind of good old AMERICAN common sense or wisdom going for you.
Remember, holier than now future "scientist"... A FACT has NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. A theory does.
You lose, have a nice day, quit school and get a job for a year so you can learn to be an American style human being.
-
Have you ever seen anything like this guy?
He is the poster child.
-
Heck translation:
"dammit, Cal kicked my ass a fourth time in one week. Or was it the sixth time in two weeks?
Am I wearing shoes today? Let me change the subject one more time and see if it works this time.
Of course, it hasn't worked the other 1,487 times, but hey, I feel lucky....
No matter, I don't have any time, I have to go and let a TSA agent put his hands in my pants again,
and I'm not even flying anywhere...."
-
"When objectivity goes out the window, it carries science with it"
I just made that up, and everybody may quote me. @@
-
Cal, you haven't kicked anyone's ass. You're like Saddam Hussein declaring victory after we destroyed his entire warmaking capability in 1990.
-
It's amazing. It really is. According to him, he's never lost a debate, ever, even though he's always wrong, either with his facts or his interpretations, usually both. Like I said, he's a living, breathing definition of ignorance.
Vapor, you've probably heard of the idea of "sphere of knowledge." It's often attributed to Einstein, but who knows if he thought of it. But it's a good way to think about it.
Think of everything a person knows as represented by a sphere, and everything that person doesn't know as the infinite space outside the sphere. Some people have small spheres of knowledge; others have large ones. And the surface area of the sphere represents how much you know you don't know - your exposure the infinite space of human knowledge.
The smaller the sphere, the more you think you know. The more knowledge you have, the more you realize you don't know.
It explains some people very well.
-
It's amazing. It really is. According to him, he's never lost a debate, ever, even though he's always wrong, either with his facts or his interpretations, usually both. Like I said, he's a living, breathing definition of ignorance.
Vapor, you've probably heard of the idea of "sphere of knowledge." It's often attributed to Einstein, but who knows if he thought of it. But it's a good way to think about it.
Think of everything a person knows as represented by a sphere, and everything that person doesn't know as the infinite space outside the sphere. Some people have small spheres of knowledge; others have large ones. And the surface area of the sphere represents how much you know you don't know - your exposure the infinite space of human knowledge.
The smaller the sphere, the more you think you know. The more knowledge you have, the more you realize you don't know.
It explains some people very well.
L
It's amazing. It really is. According to him, he's never lost a debate, ever, even though he's always wrong, either with his facts or his interpretations, usually both. Like I said, he's a living, breathing definition of ignorance.
Vapor, you've probably heard of the idea of "sphere of knowledge." It's often attributed to Einstein, but who knows if he thought of it. But it's a good way to think about it.
Think of everything a person knows as represented by a sphere, and everything that person doesn't know as the infinite space outside the sphere. Some people have small spheres of knowledge; others have large ones. And the surface area of the sphere represents how much you know you don't know - your exposure the infinite space of human knowledge.
The smaller the sphere, the more you think you know. The more knowledge you have, the more you realize you don't know.
It explains some people very well.
You too may wanna consider a bigger sip from that Pierian spring .....
WSS
-
So now I'm like a terrorist?
I guess you two are like nazi collaborators then, never asking
the questions you should have asked, always heil this and heil that,
shining their shoes and pouring their drinks...
as long as you are in good standing with the powers that be.
And when you find out that millions of Jews are being tortured to death,
you won't admit it's true, and you'll change the subject, and get angry and call
the persons who told you the truth, you insult them endlessly and say they are ignorant.
THIS is the "intelligent discussion" you two want to engage in?
Yes, I apologize for stooping to your very low level in self defense.
My bad. @@
-
So now I'm like a terrorist?
No. You're a man with nothing that's claiming victory.(as far as arguments go, anyways)
-
Terrorist? Huh?
-
saddam was a terrorist.
He terrorized his own people, and used wmd gas on them.
He had giant warehouses full of weapons, more than his army
could have used in a hundred years. He was arms supplier to terrorists
around the world.
He and his gov maimed, hideously tortured, raped and murdered across Iraq.
You call him a liberal, whatever.
I call him a terrorist. And that wasn't called for.
-
What the...
-
Heck translation:
"I'm a little pink teapot, and I whistle when the left tells me to"
-
Sorry if it offended you. You're like Ramses II, then, not Saddam.
-
After reading this, I will just say that the only thing lefties can do when people dish their BS Theories. is to start calling names and labeling.
Job well done, Chris Matthews and Obama would be proud of Heck and VT.
Not to mention the whole article is a Big pile of Bull Crap and propaganda.
-
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6009/1287.full?rss=1
By Bruce Alberts, Editor-in-Chief of Science, he published this letter 5 days ago. I think it's relevant.
Over the long run, any nation that makes crucial decisions while ignoring science is doomed. Consider, for example, the decision about how much arsenic should be allowed in drinking water supplies. There is no one “right answer” to this or many other policy questions, but it is critical that national legislation be based on what science knows about potential harm. It is therefore disturbing that so many lawmakers elected to the new U.S. Congress reject the overwhelming scientific consensus with respect to human-induced climate change. It will be difficult to make wise choices with such attitudes. The question now facing the United States is not only how to effectively reinject the facts of climate science back into the core of this particular debate, but also how to ensure that good science underlies all legislative decisions.
For 12 years, I served as the president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. As part of a larger nongovernmental organization known as the National Academies, it produces more than 200 reports a year, aimed at making the current scientific consensus on important issues available to policy-makers and the public. In major reports released this spring, the National Academies strongly reiterated its position that climate change, caused largely by human activities, poses significant risks to the world's future.* This conclusion is nevertheless challenged by numerous politicians, as well as by a substantial fraction of the public. There is only one effective solution for this type of problem: Scientists must make both science education and community outreach a much more central part of the scientific culture.
Most Americans have never met a scientist, and despite having been “taught science” at school, most have no real idea of how a scientific consensus is reached through continuous open debate and experiment. Every adult should have a base of scientific understanding about how the world works. But understanding the process through which scientific knowledge develops is equally critical. By the end of any introductory college science class—which can be an adult's final exposure to science—a student should have a realistic understanding of the nature of science. Scientists are taught to challenge authority, and their responsible challenges to a consensus help science advance. Thus, adults should expect to find some scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on an issue. And they should appreciate why a strong scientific consensus, such as that about climate change, must nevertheless form the basis for making wise personal and community decisions, representing by far the best bet for predicting the future consequences of present actions.
In addition to education, an energetic community outreach to schools, the public, and decision-makers is key. Both established scientists and those in training can be highly effective in putting a human face on science and conveying optimistic, honest attitudes toward grappling with society's problems. Week-long science festivals, to which local institutions based on science and engineering contribute ideas and personnel, should become an annual event at hundreds of sites around the nation. And programs that encourage and facilitate outreach into nonscientific communities need to become a standard part of every university and science-based industrial establishment.
The environment in which decisions are made in a democracy will always be highly politicized, but it is crucial that both sides of any argument pay close attention both to what science knows and how that knowledge has been gained. Attaining this goal in every nation will require that scientists vigorously reach out to their communities, informing them not only about their new discoveries, but also about the path they took to get there.
Cal, this is exactly why I am trying to hammer home the importance of the overwhelming majority of scientists reaching the same conclusion of the matter. You obviously don't understand how science works, yet you claim that your scientists have settled the matter of the debate, which is just downright false. I can't even say that about proponents of the issue. Your views on the topic just reek of ignorance. And you're trying to tell me, a student of the sciences, that the people I'm learning from are all completely wrong and lying. Science is going to be my life, dude, so it's like nails on a chalkboard when I hear your rants about how incorrect something is. If you think it's incorrect, then get a bachelors of science, then get a PhD, then you can go and try to prove your claims (and this goes for the xxxxing writers in the media, too). Until then, your talking points are moot.
You really need to educate yourself about an issue before you go spouting off shit that you claim is the be-all, end-all. It's gonna be decades, if ever, the debate is finished.
By Bruce Alberts, Editor-in-Chief of Science, he published this letter 5 days ago. I think it's relevant.
Who is this guy? I've never heard of him, so why should I trust him?
-
You've never heard of Science Magazine?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login