PDA

View Full Version : Economics Is Capitalism the root of Anti-Scientific Sentiment?


irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 08:11 AM
I expressed a view in an earlier thread that can be summed up thusly:

Perhaps it is not sound capitalism capitalizing on junk science but junk capitalism, capitalizing on sound science.

Now, I finally get around to reading my "to-read" queue (Instapaper + Readability, something I should have a thread on as it's very, very useful. Even when I misuse it, like I do now. I digress.) I get this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200911/brownlee-h1n1

It contains the following passages:
Students of U.S. medical history will find this circular logic familiar: it is a long-recurring theme in American medicine, and one that has, on occasion, had deadly consequences. In 1925, Sinclair Lewis caricatured a medical culture that allowed belief—and profits—to distort science in his Pulitzer Prize–winning book, Arrowsmith. Based on the lives of the real-life microbiologists Paul de Kruif and Jacques Loeb, Lewis tells the story of Martin Arrowsmith, a physician who invents a new vaccine during a deadly outbreak of bubonic plague. But his efforts to test the vaccine’s efficacy are frustrated by an angry community that desperately wants to believe the vaccine works, and a profit-hungry institute that rushes the vaccine into use prematurely—forever preempting the proper studies that are needed.

The annals of medicine are littered with treatments and tests that became medical doctrine on the slimmest of evidence, and were then declared sacrosanct and beyond scientific investigation. In the 1980s and ’90s, for example, cancer specialists were convinced that high-dose chemotherapy followed by a bone-marrow transplant was the best hope for women with advanced breast cancer, and many refused to enroll their patients in randomized clinical trials that were designed to test transplants against the standard—and far less toxic—therapy. The trials, they said, were unethical, because they knew transplants worked. When the studies were concluded, in 1999 and 2000, it turned out that bone-marrow transplants were killing patients. Another recent example involves drugs related to the analgesic lidocaine. In the 1970s, doctors noticed that the drugs seemed to make the heart beat rhythmically, and they began prescribing them to patients suffering from irregular heartbeats, assuming that restoring a proper rhythm would reduce the patient’s risk of dying. Prominent cardiologists for years opposed clinical trials of the drugs, saying it would be medical malpractice to withhold them from patients in a control group. The drugs were widely used for two decades, until a government-sponsored study showed in 1989 that patients who were prescribed the medicine were three and a half times as likely to die as those given a placebo.

Again and again, I'm left with the notion that perhaps it is capitalism that is ruining science. That is, sound science - the meat and potatoes of discovery - is being ruined by corporations trying to capitalize - and do it fast.

I see it in Global Warming, where the science is sound as can be, yet corporations are trying to capitalize which has galvanized people against the science itself. I see it in Anti-Vaccination people and arguments.

Yet, simultaneously, those staunch - how should I say this - proponents of junk science, are equally staunch capitalism defenders. And I can't see why.

Thoughts?

HonestChieffan
11-26-2009, 08:16 AM
Its bad Science people object to. What on earth does that have to do with Capitalism?

Saul Good
11-26-2009, 08:47 AM
Why do you damned capitalists hate lying scientists so much?

jjjayb
11-26-2009, 09:02 AM
OR

Is it socialism that is ruining science? The Global warming scare mongering is nothing more than a way to help usher in a "one world" government.

Obama's science czar himself is a big fan of this. He is already on the record as saying we need a "planetary regime" that would use a global police force to enforce population control.

Funny, didn't his name come up in connection with the leaked climate fraud emails?

But then again, I'm probably just a kook anyway because I also believe this recession we are in is perfectly planned out.

Norman Einstein
11-26-2009, 09:10 AM
But then again, I'm probably just a kook anyway because I also believe this recession we are in is perfectly planned out.

I don't know if I can agree about perfectly, but I agree it was a planned event but I don't think they knew of the full consequences of their actions.

headsnap
11-26-2009, 10:00 AM
OR

Is it socialism that is ruining science? The Global warming scare mongering is nothing more than a way to help usher in a "one world" government.

Obama's science czar himself is a big fan of this. He is already on the record as saying we need a "planetary regime" that would use a global police force to enforce population control.

Funny, didn't his name come up in connection with the leaked climate fraud emails?

But then again, I'm probably just a kook anyway because I also believe this recession we are in is perfectly planned out.

this...

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 10:02 AM
TJ? Amnorix? tiptap? Adept? banyon?

I'd rather this not become another hysteria/paranoia thread as it looks like it's headed for with the current circle jerk.

headsnap
11-26-2009, 10:02 AM
I see it in Global Warming, where the science is sound as can be, yet corporations are trying to capitalize which has galvanized people against the science itself...

even with recent events, do you stand behind that statement?

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 10:04 AM
even with recent events, do you stand behind that statement?

As I said in the other thread, I haven't had time to look at these recent events to discern.

So, presently, yes, because I am not up to speed in this whole "climategate". (FTR, global warming principles always made perfect sense to me. In fact, I might go as far as to say it is common sense.)

I will say that what worries me about climategate is that the proponents of it are the same, usual suspects of anti-science propaganda. At least so far.

I'll get back to you when I've done my own investigating.

Royal Fanatic
11-26-2009, 10:05 AM
I see it in Global Warming, where the science is sound as can be, yet corporations are trying to capitalize which has galvanized people against the science itself.
You lost all credibility with that statement. The science supporting man-made global warming could hardly be described as "sound as can be".

headsnap
11-26-2009, 10:05 AM
TJ? Amnorix? tiptap? Adept? banyon?

I'd rather this not become another hysteria/paranoia thread as it looks like it's headed for with the current circle jerk.

seriously, FVCK YOU AND YOUR CIRCLE JERK!!!

just because the usual suspects can't defend/spin(except tiptap) doesn't make it a circle jerk...



where were your cries of 'circle jerk' a year or two ago? That's right, you and jAZ were on point!

HonestChieffan
11-26-2009, 10:06 AM
Irrational thread.

mlyonsd
11-26-2009, 10:12 AM
If the world operated on a level playing field I'd be all for replacing coal technology, etc. and going green.

Our economy is in no shape for us to be taking the lead on this when the rest of the inudstrialized world doesn't do their part.

If that makes me paranoid so be it.

Again, I live in a place where rocks make their way up through the ground each spring. Rocks that were deposited in numerous ice ages. When someone can convince me why I should worry about GW now when I can see visible proof on my own ground how it's been going on for thousands and thousands of years I might get concerned.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 10:21 AM
You lost all credibility with that statement. The science supporting man-made global warming could hardly be described as "sound as can be".

Notice that you attached a qualifier there. That being "man-made". See, that's what's often lost when the anti-GW crowd starts talking. Instead, all of GW is thrown out. Thats not to say that I disagree that man is having an impact. The question, for me, is how much.


If the world operated on a level playing field I'd be all for replacing coal technology, etc. and going green.

Our economy is in no shape for us to be taking the lead on this when the rest of the inudstrialized world doesn't do their part.

If that makes me paranoid so be it.

You know I wasn't referring to that type of paranoia. Hell, I agree with that, to an extent. I'm not even talking about practicality in implementing help to solve the problem like you're suggesting. Instead, it's breeding an anti-science mentality. It's not just in GW. It's in many areas. Evolution, anti-vaccinations, GW are just a few of the big ones.


Again, I live in a place where rocks make their way up through the ground each spring. Rocks that were deposited in numerous ice ages. When someone can convince me why I should worry about GW now when I can see visible proof on my own ground how it's been going on for thousands and thousands of years I might get concerned.

I'd agree with that. Yet, it'd also caution that this view is shortsighted. In that, if it were, somehow, accelerated, you'd be wiped out due to your insistence of it being slow.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 10:23 AM
seriously, FVCK YOU AND YOUR CIRCLE JERK!!!

just because the usual suspects can't defend/spin(except tiptap) doesn't make it a circle jerk...



where were your cries of 'circle jerk' a year or two ago? That's right, you and jAZ were on point!

Thank you for proving my point.

It has nothing to do with left or right, politically.

headsnap
11-26-2009, 10:28 AM
Thank you for proving my point.

It has nothing to do with left or right, politically.

lol, I said NOTHING about right or left...


but with that being said, GW or Global Climate Change as it stands now and has for the last 20+ year is TOTALLY political.

carry on...

Calcountry
11-26-2009, 10:34 AM
Why do you damned capitalists hate lying scientists so much?LMAO

Calcountry
11-26-2009, 10:37 AM
lol, I said NOTHING about right or left...


but with that being said, GW or Global Climate Change as it stands now and has for the last 20+ year is TOTALLY political.

carry on...IMHO, it has more to do with filling the religious void that the godless left have. They need to have a cause bigger than themselves to believe and and "make a difference". Otherwise, they have no purpose for existence and are nothing more than oozing blobs that learned to homo erect themselves and are destined to blink into oblivion someday, as if they were never here.

mlyonsd
11-26-2009, 10:37 AM
You know I wasn't referring to that type of paranoia. Hell, I agree with that, to an extent. I'm not even talking about practicality in implementing help to solve the problem like you're suggesting. Instead, it's breeding an anti-science mentality. It's not just in GW. It's in many areas. Evolution, anti-vaccinations, GW are just a few of the big ones.

When it comes to GW if anything I see a question the science mentality. Which is healthy IMO. And I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do when understanding how the scientific community operates and is funded.

Anti-vaccination? I have no problem with people questioning what goes in their kids and own bodies.

Anti-evolution? I don't see much of that at all. I think the science is generally accepted there.


I'd agree with that. Yet, it'd also caution that this view is shortsighted. In that, if it were, somehow, accelerated, you'd be wiped out due to your insistence of it being slow.

One asteroid and the point is moot. Seriously though man will destroy himself for other reasons long before GW does the job, IMO.

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 10:38 AM
I expressed a view in an earlier thread that can be summed up thusly:



Now, I finally get around to reading my "to-read" queue (Instapaper + Readability, something I should have a thread on as it's very, very useful. Even when I misuse it, like I do now. I digress.) I get this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200911/brownlee-h1n1

It contains the following passages:


Again and again, I'm left with the notion that perhaps it is capitalism that is ruining science. That is, sound science - the meat and potatoes of discovery - is being ruined by corporations trying to capitalize - and do it fast.

I see it in Global Warming, where the science is sound as can be, yet corporations are trying to capitalize which has galvanized people against the science itself. I see it in Anti-Vaccination people and arguments.

Yet, simultaneously, those staunch - how should I say this - proponents of junk science, are equally staunch capitalism defenders. And I can't see why.

Thoughts?
BIG_DADDY just got called out.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 11:09 AM
When it comes to GW if anything I see a question the science mentality. Which is healthy IMO. And I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do when understanding how the scientific community operates and is funded.

I agree, for the most part.

Anti-vaccination? I have no problem with people questioning what goes in their kids and own bodies.

And when their kids threaten herd-immunity? Or those kids still too young to receive vaccinations?

Anti-evolution? I don't see much of that at all. I think the science is generally accepted there.

You don't see anti-evolution sentiment or you don't see it making much impact?

If it's the former, I'd say you're blind. If it's the latter, I think your closer to the truth but still off. There are plenty of states still trying to change curriculum with respect to evolution and ID.


One asteroid and the point is moot. Seriously though man will destroy himself for other reasons long before GW does the job, IMO.

I'd probably agree with that. That doesn't mean the warnings GW proponents put forth are pointless, irrelevant, or wrong.

BIG_DADDY just got called out.

I was curious of your thoughts too.

KCTitus
11-26-2009, 11:13 AM
LOL! No seriously...LOL!

WTF?

America, home of capitalism, home to the greatest advances in technology and medicine in the history or the world and you seriously ask this question. The richest most advanced country and we can all blame capitalism.

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 11:18 AM
I was curious of your thoughts too.
I'm predictable. You probably know that I essentially agree with your premise.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 11:21 AM
LOL! No seriously...LOL!

WTF?

America, home of capitalism, home to the greatest advances in technology and medicine in the history or the world and you seriously ask this question. The richest most advanced country and we can all blame capitalism.

If that's what you're taking away, you've missed the point.

KCTitus
11-26-2009, 11:26 AM
If that's what you're taking away, you've missed the point.

No, I got it. To you, capitalism is the problem. Ok...let's look at the evidence.

You lose.

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 11:33 AM
No, I got it. To you, capitalism is the problem. Ok...let's look at the evidence.

You lose.
Ah, nuanced discussion.

KCWolfman
11-26-2009, 01:48 PM
I gotcha.

Since it is no longer funded by individuals, can it be kept pure?

Great question, and one that needs to be applied to the arts as well.

KC native
11-26-2009, 01:48 PM
I expressed a view in an earlier thread that can be summed up thusly:



Now, I finally get around to reading my "to-read" queue (Instapaper + Readability, something I should have a thread on as it's very, very useful. Even when I misuse it, like I do now. I digress.) I get this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200911/brownlee-h1n1

It contains the following passages:


Again and again, I'm left with the notion that perhaps it is capitalism that is ruining science. That is, sound science - the meat and potatoes of discovery - is being ruined by corporations trying to capitalize - and do it fast.

I see it in Global Warming, where the science is sound as can be, yet corporations are trying to capitalize which has galvanized people against the science itself. I see it in Anti-Vaccination people and arguments.

Yet, simultaneously, those staunch - how should I say this - proponents of junk science, are equally staunch capitalism defenders. And I can't see why.

Thoughts?


I don't think it can be pinned down to capitalism. The problem is that science and the conclusions it reaches are extremely nuanced. Thus when a potential new discovery is unearthed someone who doesn't understand sees the potential to turn a buck or gain notoriety and in the rush to be the first they distort the case or misrepresent so they can secure their place as first in line to recognize the benefits of whatever.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 01:50 PM
I don't think it can be pinned down to capitalism. The problem is that science and the conclusions it reaches are extremely nuanced. Thus when a potential new discovery is unearthed someone who doesn't understand sees the potential to turn a buck or gain notoriety and in the rush to be the first they distort the case or misrepresent so they can secure their place as first in line to recognize the benefits of whatever.

And usually that benefit is profit. Hence, why I extrapolated it to capitalism.

KCWolfman
11-26-2009, 01:51 PM
I am converse on the climate issue from you Irish.

I believe the false science agenda was further solely BECAUSE of capitalism. I don't believe capitalism is causing the ruination.

You say that Corps drive the science and distort it, I say the scientists are distorting the data to get the funds from the corporation.

KC native
11-26-2009, 01:52 PM
And usually that benefit is profit. Hence, why I extrapolated it to capitalism.

I think it's more of a human nature thing versus capitalism. I bet it would have regardless of economic structure.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 01:55 PM
I am converse on the climate issue from you Irish.

I believe the false science agenda was further solely BECAUSE of capitalism. I don't believe capitalism is causing the ruination.

You say that Corps drive the science and distort it, I say the scientists are distorting the data to get the funds from the corporation.

I could believe that if the principles behind Global Warming (in general and man-made, specifically) weren't, in my opinion, common sense.

It makes too much sense.

Plus, for any corporation that benefits from the distorting of it, there's one that doesn't. So, then we're back to an even playing field. But I don't see anyone deriding corporations backing the anti-GW studies...

I think it's more of a human nature thing versus capitalism. I bet it would have regardless of economic structure.

I could agree with that. Though with the qualification that capitalism accelerates it.

Also, my point isn't that capitalism is wrong necessarily. It's more that I'm confused as to why people laud the pros of capitalism and at the same time blame science for capitalism's involvement in distorting/misrepresenting/exploiting sound science.

KCWolfman
11-26-2009, 02:12 PM
I could believe that if the principles behind Global Warming (in general and man-made, specifically) weren't, in my opinion, common sense.

It makes too much sense.

.

Actually, I disagree with that concept, vehemently. In fact, common sense tends the opposite direction:

There were no factories, cars, fields of tens of thousands of heads of cattle in the 1400's, yet the earth was warmer than today.

Humans have been blamed for much more power than they actually have for distorting the earth's "balance". I remember reading the Exxon Valdez disaster would destroy the Alaskan shoreline for at least the next 500 years, making it totally unlivable, now the longest estimate is 30 years (and not "Uninhabitable" for 30 years, but rather stunted growth).

I grew up reading about an impending ice age in the 70s. In fact, it was taught in my 5th grade classroom in the 70s.

There are way too many scientists, reputable ones, who disagree with the theory. Some of these scientists are being fired from their jobs for voicing their opinions. Why is it necessary to shut them up by excluding them?

Common sense dictates the opposite direction from your assumption.

bowener
11-26-2009, 02:17 PM
Again and again, I'm left with the notion that perhaps it is capitalism that is ruining science. That is, sound science - the meat and potatoes of discovery - is being ruined by corporations trying to capitalize - and do it fast.

I see it in Global Warming, where the science is sound as can be, yet corporations are trying to capitalize which has galvanized people against the science itself. I see it in Anti-Vaccination people and arguments.

Yet, simultaneously, those staunch - how should I say this - proponents of junk science, are equally staunch capitalism defenders. And I can't see why.

Thoughts?

Something that you may want to look in to or at least think about is that large corporations place patents on medical or scientific discoveries that could aid human kind, but the profits aren't there. The reasoning behind such actions are obvious, such as with the big 3 auto companies, and basically serve the patent owner by keeping another company from creating the same product or finding the same discovery and edging them out of the market.

A personal example of this for me is drug companies and their search for a "cure" for Parkinson's disease. There will never be a day that pfizer cures anything, simply because they are driven by the bottom line and their share holders. It will never be more profitable to cure a disease than it is to treat a disease, especially in the USA where pills can run beyond hundreds of dollars a piece.

Other examples of this can be seen in the auto industry. I'm not going to google search anything specific because I am sure we have all heard of this type of stuff, but there is a guy in Wichita that has been discussed on this board a few times (the one who converts your car to a bio-hybrid with ridiculous power and MPG -- nearing 100 now), and he refuses to sell any of his patents to the auto industries because they ****ed him over in the 80's on some part that would have aided the car buyer, but hurt the Corp.'s profits.

Ludicrous examples of corp. ownership include Time Warner's possession of the "Happy Birthday Song", which you must pay for the rights to use in movies or on TV (it is quite expensive if I remember right), several corp.'s buying up human genes (this is ****ing insane and asinine ), the privatization of water in Uruguay (pretty sure, might be a neighbor) which ultimately resulted in rioting after the corp. tried to charge the people for the rain water they were collecting. Sorry, off topic here, but it just amazes me at what corp. can do.

bowener
11-26-2009, 02:20 PM
Actually, I disagree with that concept, vehemently. In fact, common sense tends the opposite direction:

There were no factories, cars, fields of tens of thousands of heads of cattle in the 1400's, yet the earth was warmer than today.

Humans have been blamed for much more power than they actually have for distorting the earth's "balance". I remember reading the Exxon Valdez disaster would destroy the Alaskan shoreline for at least the next 500 years, making it totally unlivable, now the longest estimate is 30 years (and not "Uninhabitable" for 30 years, but rather stunted growth).

I grew up reading about an impending ice age in the 70s. In fact, it was taught in my 5th grade classroom in the 70s.

There are way too many scientists, reputable ones, who disagree with the theory. Some of these scientists are being fired from their jobs for voicing their opinions. Why is it necessary to shut them up by excluding them?

Common sense dictates the opposite direction from your assumption.

I in no way disagree with what you have said here, but common sense would also say that our mass consumption of natural resources and the amount of pollution we have produced has had an impact on the world. It may not be entirely felt now, but it will surely have a large future impact on the world.

KCWolfman
11-26-2009, 02:23 PM
I in no way disagree with what you have said here, but common sense would also say that our mass consumption of natural resources and the amount of pollution we have produced has had an impact on the world. It may not be entirely felt now, but it will surely have a large future impact on the world.

I thought all life was evolutionary?

While changes dictate change, more exponentially drastic changes have occurred in our earth's environmental past without negative repercussions to date.

Yes, I am sure that the human population growth dictates changes in the environment. However, I have yet to see conclusive proof that it is disastrous.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 02:45 PM
Actually, I disagree with that concept, vehemently. In fact, common sense tends the opposite direction:

There were no factories, cars, fields of tens of thousands of heads of cattle in the 1400's, yet the earth was warmer than today.

Humans have been blamed for much more power than they actually have for distorting the earth's "balance". I remember reading the Exxon Valdez disaster would destroy the Alaskan shoreline for at least the next 500 years, making it totally unlivable, now the longest estimate is 30 years (and not "Uninhabitable" for 30 years, but rather stunted growth).

I grew up reading about an impending ice age in the 70s. In fact, it was taught in my 5th grade classroom in the 70s.

There are way too many scientists, reputable ones, who disagree with the theory. Some of these scientists are being fired from their jobs for voicing their opinions. Why is it necessary to shut them up by excluding them?

Common sense dictates the opposite direction from your assumption.

The global cooling was a PR mistake that has since gone wild. It's kind of like when New Scientist published a headline that read: "Darwin was Wrong" and creationist jizzed themselves and couldn't copy and paste it fast enough. Trouble was, the article wasn't saying what they they thought it was. Too late, scientists had to go on the defensive. And this was a publication defending science....

As for the bold, can you give me some names? Some schools?

KCWolfman
11-26-2009, 02:58 PM
The global cooling was a PR mistake that has since gone wild. It's kind of like when New Scientist published a headline that read: "Darwin was Wrong" and creationist jizzed themselves and couldn't copy and paste it fast enough. Trouble was, the article wasn't saying what they they thought it was. Too late, scientists had to go on the defensive. And this was a publication defending science....

As for the bold, can you give me some names? Some schools?

Professor William Gray comes to mind immediately with Colorado State University.

Other scientists who state they have severe reservations regarding Global Warming:
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Uzbekistand Physicist
Claude Allegre, French Geochemist who has done a 180 from his original assesment on the "pro" stance
Nir Shariv, Israeli Astrophysicist believes solar flares are more to blame than human intervention
Richard Lindzen is an American Climatologist who states people are losing funding and being fired for disagreeing with the "norm"


I can google a great many more, but these came to mind immediately.

morphius
11-26-2009, 03:05 PM
How does one link Doc's saying that it would be malpractice to not give sick people this medicine to a fault on capitalism?

mlyonsd
11-26-2009, 03:20 PM
Actually, I disagree with that concept, vehemently. In fact, common sense tends the opposite direction:

There were no factories, cars, fields of tens of thousands of heads of cattle in the 1400's, yet the earth was warmer than today.

Humans have been blamed for much more power than they actually have for distorting the earth's "balance". I remember reading the Exxon Valdez disaster would destroy the Alaskan shoreline for at least the next 500 years, making it totally unlivable, now the longest estimate is 30 years (and not "Uninhabitable" for 30 years, but rather stunted growth).

I grew up reading about an impending ice age in the 70s. In fact, it was taught in my 5th grade classroom in the 70s.

There are way too many scientists, reputable ones, who disagree with the theory. Some of these scientists are being fired from their jobs for voicing their opinions. Why is it necessary to shut them up by excluding them?

Common sense dictates the opposite direction from your assumption.

The other side thinks Algore speaks with common sense. How much has he profited by capitalizing on GW?

Always follow the money.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 04:31 PM
The other side thinks Algore speaks with common sense. How much has he profited by capitalizing on GW?

Always follow the money.

I still don't get this.

If it's always follow the money and each issue has to sides to the story and there's money backing each, how do you discern who's right and who's swayed by money?

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 04:35 PM
Professor William Gray comes to mind immediately with Colorado State University.

Other scientists who state they have severe reservations regarding Global Warming:
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Uzbekistand Physicist
Claude Allegre, French Geochemist who has done a 180 from his original assesment on the "pro" stance
Nir Shariv, Israeli Astrophysicist believes solar flares are more to blame than human intervention
Richard Lindzen is an American Climatologist who states people are losing funding and being fired for disagreeing with the "norm"


I can google a great many more, but these came to mind immediately.

Are you talking about global warming deniers or just the man-made version deniers?

They are totally different.


How does one link Doc's saying that it would be malpractice to not give sick people this medicine to a fault on capitalism?

:spock:

Where are you getting that from? And it's not just one link, it just happens to be the article I was reading when I decided to create a topic about the idea that had been brewing for some time.

The portion I quoted is pretty evident. Corporations rush out treatments without rigorously testing. Without proper research and frankly proper science. All in an effort to make a big, quick buck. Yet, when that happens it's primarily science and scientists that get blamed for it.

mlyonsd
11-26-2009, 05:54 PM
I still don't get this.

If it's always follow the money and each issue has to sides to the story and there's money backing each, how do you discern who's right and who's swayed by money?

Well....

First off you're barking up the wrong tree because I work for one of the largest power companies in the midwest. We've been putting up wind turbines for years and are the leader in wind kilowatt power in the US. So I know what I'm talking about.

We don't do it because it's a cheap alternative for supplying electricity. We can do that much cheaper by building more coal fired turbines. We do it because we're being forced into a green environment. One that will cost the consumer more in the long run.

When I say follow the money look who's pushing GW. Only those that gain from making money or political capital on that position.

All the way down the line from Gore, to Obama, to Imelt, to any scientist that can provide any form of proof to support their cause.

3 of those 4 do it for money, the other one does it for political reasons. And like I said before, if the entire world wanted to play the same game I wouldn't have a problem with it. Until the world wants to play even we're idiots for taking the lead.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 05:57 PM
Well....

First off you're barking up the wrong tree because I work for one of the largest power companies in the midwest. We've been putting up wind turbines for years and are the leader in wind kilowatt power in the US. So I know what I'm talking about.

We don't do it because it's a cheap alternative for supplying electricity. We can do that much cheaper by building more coal fired turbines. We do it because we're being forced into a green environment. One that will cost the consumer more in the long run.

When I say follow the money look who's pushing GW. Only those that gain from making money or political capital on that position.

All the way down the line from Gore, to Obama, to Imelt, to any scientist that can provide any form of proof to support their cause.

3 of those 4 do it for money, the other one does it for political reasons. And like I said before, if the entire world wanted to play the same game I wouldn't have a problem with it. Until the world wants to play even we're idiots for taking the lead.

That's great and all but I don't see it answering my question.

Who's to say the anti-GW "studies" aren't having the same money trail issues?

mlyonsd
11-26-2009, 06:02 PM
Who's to say the anti-GW "studies" aren't having the same money trail issues?

I'm not saying that, maybe they are. Maybe my company is paying them.

But my argument still stands. When our economy is crippled and our manufacturing is sent overseas to countries that won't play even why should we?

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 06:35 PM
I'm not saying that, maybe they are. Maybe my company is paying them.

But my argument still stands. When our economy is crippled and our manufacturing is sent overseas to countries that won't play even why should we?

I see. Then we're arguing to separate points for no reason. It seems like we agree with each other on each.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 06:51 PM
Now, I've read up on the emails and even the email(s) themselves. (Not all, but a good few.)

It appears the emails are, in fact, real. Yet, it also appears that they are not - as I suspected, given the hysteria, paranoia and fear attached to them - as devastating as they have been made out to be.

First, the number of scientists this implicates is 4. The number of scientists who have amassed data on Global Warming is much, much greater than 4.

Second, the emails aren't about faking data but rather about how to fudge presenting it. That is, how to make it more presentable. That's vastly different than faking data.

Hell, even if they did fake data, it would take much, much more than an isolated incident to strike a Titanic-like blow to Global Warming research, principles, theory, and ultimately its credibility.

Third, I think Andrew Sullivan makes a brilliant point when he wrote the following:
The key to these bloggers' mentality is simply to find some tiny thing and focus all attention on that in order to persuade people that the bigger reality is untrue or irrelevant. This is not an argument; it's a technique. It's a technique to persuade people not to examine all the evidence, since the source of the evidence - secular humanist scientists - are evil suspects and against God and in favor of making your gas bill higher.

You can't actually persuade people that way, of course. But you can fortify their resistance to examining all the evidence.

In fact, this sums up a lot of what I'm talking about in this very thread. It covers GW, Anti-Vax and anti-evolution all in one go.


As far as I can tell, this has about as much weight to it as death panels did with Health Care Reform. Which was to say, zip, zero, nada.

KCTitus
11-26-2009, 06:54 PM
Ah, nuanced discussion.

Yeah, bout as nuanced as capitalism is bad...

KCTitus
11-26-2009, 06:56 PM
Second, the emails aren't about faking data but rather about how to fudge presenting it. That is, how to make it more presentable. That's vastly different than faking data.

ie...they didnt 'lie', rather they didnt tell the truth. HUGE difference.

Hey Reaper, here's your nuance.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 07:16 PM
Yeah, bout as nuanced as capitalism is bad...

Yeah, because I said that.......

ie...they didnt 'lie', rather they didnt tell the truth. HUGE difference.

Hey Reaper, here's your nuance.

Swing and a miss.

Once again, you miss the point. 0/2. Is that you Alex Gordon?

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

I'll let the actual scientists explain:

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

FTR, I think their mispresentation tactics are unethical in themselves, but it doesn't damage GW evidence one bit.

KCTitus
11-26-2009, 07:17 PM
Yeah, because I said that.......

I quoted you...so unless someone hacked your account, then yes, you did.

Post 48, wasnt in response to you, but you're the one bringing nuance into the discussion. I figured Reaper would appreciate the hair splitting, it's really not that difficult, however.

Yeah, GW data is for lack of a better term fooked...fudged, is fooked. there's no nuance there.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 07:25 PM
I quoted you...so unless someone hacked your account, then yes, you did.

Can you point out this mysterious post?

This is the only one I can find that even has you quoting me (before the one above, of course).

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6295822&postcount=25

KCTitus
11-26-2009, 07:27 PM
Can you point out this mysterious post?

This is the only one I can find that even has you quoting me (before the one above, of course).

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6295822&postcount=25

see post 49

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 07:28 PM
see post 49

:spock:

Where in post 49 did you quote me saying capitalism is bad?

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk
Second, the emails aren't about faking data but rather about how to fudge presenting it. That is, how to make it more presentable. That's vastly different than faking data.
ie...they didnt 'lie', rather they didnt tell the truth. HUGE difference.

Hey Reaper, here's your nuance.

KCTitus
11-26-2009, 07:29 PM
:spock:

Where in post 49 did you quote me saying capitalism is bad?

Ok...you got me!!! See the OP. that's where you posit capitalism is bad.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 07:31 PM
Ok...you got me!!! See the OP. that's where you posit capitalism is bad.

Can you please quote the line where I say that?

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 07:33 PM
Yeah, bout as nuanced as capitalism is bad...

I quoted you...so unless someone hacked your account, then yes, you did.

Post 48, wasnt in response to you, but you're the one bringing nuance into the discussion. I figured Reaper would appreciate the hair splitting, it's really not that difficult, however.

Yeah, GW data is for lack of a better term fooked...fudged, is fooked. there's no nuance there.
You're such a miserable liar.

KCTitus
11-26-2009, 07:33 PM
Again and again, I'm left with the notion that perhaps it is capitalism that is ruining science.

What's with the obtuse angle? Seriously...I understand your premise. Dont go getting all dummied up now.

KCTitus
11-26-2009, 07:34 PM
You're such a miserable liar.

Hey!!! Reaper...did you like that nuance. Can you appreciate the nuance between lying and not telling the truth?

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 07:36 PM
What's with the obtuse angle? Seriously...I understand your premise. Dont go getting all dummied up now.

:spock:

What?

Are you in like severe backtrack mode now or is this a genuine question? What did I dummy up for you? And why do I feel you don't actually understand my premise even though you said Seriously.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 07:37 PM
I quoted you...so unless someone hacked your account, then yes, you did.

Post 48, wasnt in response to you, but you're the one bringing nuance into the discussion. I figured Reaper would appreciate the hair splitting, it's really not that difficult, however.

Yeah, GW data is for lack of a better term fooked...fudged, is fooked. there's no nuance there.

Also, please explain the bold.


For now, I'm out. Working early tomorrow.

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 07:38 PM
Hey!!! Reaper...did you like that nuance. Can you appreciate the nuance between lying and not telling the truth?
I can. It is a difference recognized as morally permissible in the view of such an important ethicist as Kant.

But if you're trying to be clever it isn't quite working out. You're just straight-up lying.

KCTitus
11-26-2009, 07:40 PM
:spock:

What?

Are you in like severe backtrack mode now or is this a genuine question? What did I dummy up for you? And why do I feel you don't actually understand my premise even though you said Seriously.

Sorry, I guess I could type slower, but at this point you're just playing stupid.

I'll try again, here goes:

Capitalism is the most successful societal construct ever. Period...end of story. America is the home of all great technological and scientific advances in the history of the world. How you could theorize that capitialism is anti science is a joke on its face and not worthy of serious discussion.

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 07:41 PM
Sorry, I guess I could type slower, but at this point you're just playing stupid.

I'll try again, here goes:

Capitalism is the most successful societal construct ever. Period...end of story. America is the home of all great technological and scientific advances in the history of the world. How you could theorize that capitialism is anti science is a joke on its face and not worthy of serious discussion.
That is another bald-faced lie.

KCTitus
11-26-2009, 07:41 PM
I can. It is a difference recognized as morally permissible in the view of such an important ethicist as Kant.

But if you're trying to be clever it isn't quite working out. You're just straight-up lying.

Aha...so lying is ok, as long as it furthers the socialist cause. Not telling the truth in all other cases is bad.

Got it.

KCTitus
11-26-2009, 07:42 PM
That is another bald-faced lie.

disprove it.

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 07:49 PM
Aha...so lying is ok, as long as it furthers the socialist cause. Not telling the truth in all other cases is bad.

Got it.
I don't even know what that posts means. If you're attempting to put words into my mouth then you're doing it poorly.

disprove it.
We're you homeschooled? Chinese and Arabs pioneered mathematics, astrology was being practiced by such disparate populations as the Italians and Mayans, the English and Germans began studying quantum physics, genetics was started by an Austrian monk, the English invented the steam engine and helped usher in the industrial revolution, etc.

KCTitus
11-26-2009, 07:54 PM
We're you homeschooled? Chinese and Arabs pioneered mathematics, astrology was being practiced by such disparate populations as the Italians and Mayans, the English and Germans began studying quantum physics, genetics was started by an Austrian monk, the English invented the steam engine and helped usher in the industrial revolution, etc.

That may be the problem, I was a product of government schools, but Im pretty sure that America's founding was around 1776, my math might be off, however.

Since then, however, the greatest advances in science and technology have happened here in the USA.

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 07:57 PM
That may be the problem, I was a product of government schools, but Im pretty sure that America's founding was around 1776, my math might be off, however.

Since then, however, the greatest advances in science and technology have happened here in the USA.
Ok, that is an entirely different statement in two respects. I objected to you saying that "all of the great" (as opposed to only the "greatest") advances in "the history of the world" (as opposed to only since America was founded. I can't strongly disagree with your revised statement.

KCTitus
11-26-2009, 08:05 PM
Ok, that is an entirely different statement in two respects. I objected to you saying that "all of the great" (as opposed to only the "greatest") advances in "the history of the world" (as opposed to only since America was founded. I can't strongly disagree with your revised statement.

I'll have to learn to choose my words more carefully in the future, maybe I infer the subtext of the OP and cut to the chase too quick.

To me, capitalism = America, because it's the home of the true capitalist system.

Saul Good
11-26-2009, 08:07 PM
Ok, that is an entirely different statement in two respects. I objected to you saying that "all of the great" (as opposed to only the "greatest") advances in "the history of the world" (as opposed to only since America was founded. I can't strongly disagree with your revised statement.

You are correct here, but his point still stands. The technological achievements in the US over the last 75 years dwarf the rest of the world combined.

KCTitus
11-26-2009, 08:15 PM
Also, please explain the bold.

For now, I'm out. Working early tomorrow.

They never allowed any skeptic to see their data or reproduce their data for peer review. And by peer review I mean disinterested scientists.

The leaked emails prove this.

If you have a provable theory, why hide it? and no, Global Corporations, doesnt cut it.

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 08:19 PM
You are correct here, but his point still stands. The technological achievements in the US over the last 75 years dwarf the rest of the world combined.
I think its absurd to think so, mostly because I subscribe to the whole "If I saw then it was upon the shoulders of giants" idea. All of it is important and we couldn't have the advances that we do without the ultra-important work of those before us.

KCTitus
11-26-2009, 10:22 PM
I think its absurd to think so, mostly because I subscribe to the whole "If I saw then it was upon the shoulders of giants" idea. All of it is important and we couldn't have the advances that we do without the ultra-important work of those before us.


This is true...then ask yourself, why didnt all the great communist/socialist/dictatorships beat 'US' to the punch. What was it about America that led to innovation in technology and science. Yes, capitalism...

Or rich white men...

Again, Im from public schools

Reaper16
11-26-2009, 10:43 PM
This is true...then ask yourself, why didnt all the great communist/socialist/dictatorships beat 'US' to the punch. What was it about America that led to innovation in technology and science. Yes, capitalism...

Or rich white men...

Again, Im from public schools
I took his statement to mean that the US's contributions to science dwarf the rest of history's contributions combined. I thought that because he felt that your original point still stood up. If he meant that the US's contributions "over the last 75 years" dwarf the rest of the world's contributions over the last 75 years then I will agree with him.

KCTitus
11-26-2009, 10:48 PM
I took his statement to mean that the US's contributions to science dwarf the rest of history's contributions combined. I thought that because he felt that your original point still stood up. If he meant that the US's contributions "over the last 75 years" dwarf the rest of the world's contributions over the last 75 years then I will agree with him.

Well...took damn near 12 hours, but yep, we're back to where I started in post 22.

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 03:01 AM
They never allowed any skeptic to see their data or reproduce their data for peer review. And by peer review I mean disinterested scientists.

The leaked emails prove this.

If you have a provable theory, why hide it? and no, Global Corporations, doesnt cut it.

Clearly, you are either grossly misinformed or you, as you have in this thread, are lying.

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 03:02 AM
Sorry, I guess I could type slower, but at this point you're just playing stupid.

I'll try again, here goes:

Capitalism is the most successful societal construct ever. Period...end of story. America is the home of all great technological and scientific advances in the history of the world. How you could theorize that capitialism is anti science is a joke on its face and not worthy of serious discussion.

Capitalism is successful ergo it has no flaws? Is that seriously what you're peddling?

KCWolfman
11-27-2009, 03:30 AM
Capitalism is successful ergo it has no flaws? Is that seriously what you're peddling?

I dont believe Capitalism is at fault at all. Government intervention is the issue here.

Capitalism will not long term fund an issue that is not profitable. If the science is bogus, it won't pay off. You may scam funds for a time, but eventually your cold fusion display simply will not garner any more funds.

Now government, that is an entirely different concept. Government gives out money regardless of the results, but a scare must be present. For example, stem cell research. All cures currently found from stem cells have occurred from adult cells. Not a single embryonic cell has garnered a cure of any disease. However, start telling people that you can cure cripples and fix brain trauma and the government will actually fund such research without a lick of proof. Now seriously, if you could make a paralyzed man walk with an unborn human cell, don't you think that private agencies would be going gaga over such a possibility???? They would increase their profits exponentially. If capitalism drove science to false results, this is a fertile playground.

Since Pfizer isn't that stupid to go in blindly with no real supporting results, scientists go to their local US Representatives and tell them how they can fix the world. Lawyers, having no real background in science, buy into it hook, line, and sinker without any supporting data. They push the agenda, get a bill passed, and get taxpayer funds sent to their district to pay these scientists to research such possibilities. Now, we can't have results too quickly or the funds would dry up and the jobs would disappear.

Government seems to be the real culprit to me, not Capitalism.

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 03:39 AM
I dont believe Capitalism is at fault at all. Government intervention is the issue here.

Capitalism will not long term fund an issue that is not profitable. If the science is bogus, it won't pay off. You may scam funds for a time, but eventually your cold fusion display simply will not garner any more funds.

Funding isn't the issue. It's when they take breaks or discoveries and rush them out the door for profit. It's when they start trying to make hand over fist on green products - some of which aren't really green.



Now government, that is an entirely different concept. Government gives out money regardless of the results, but a scare must be present. For example, stem cell research. All cures currently found from stem cells have occurred from adult cells. Not a single embryonic cell has garnered a cure of any disease.

I would like to point out that it was somewhat difficult to get funding for embryonic stem cell research. So, I don't know that it's entirely true. Further, just because scientists found a way around embryonic stem cells to help certain cases, doesn't mean they're useless or were rightly deserving of no funding.


However, start telling people that you can cure cripples and fix brain trauma and the government will actually fund such research without a lick of proof.

Usually, in science, you start with a hypothesis and then test it. Usually, you need funding to test it. So, I don't see the problem with funding experimental ideas. In fact, you say we do such a thing up at the top. The difference is corporations do it.


Now seriously, if you could make a paralyzed man walk with an unborn human cell, don't you think that private agencies would be going gaga over such a possibility???? They would increase their profits exponentially. If capitalism drove science to false results, this is a fertile playground.

No one is arguing capitalism drove science to false results. No one.


Since Pfizer isn't that stupid to go in blindly with no real supporting results, scientists go to their local US Representatives and tell them how they can fix the world.

Are you actually saying Pfizer doesn't have failed R&D projects?


Lawyers, having no real background in science, buy into it hook, line, and sinker without any supporting data. They push the agenda, get a bill passed, and get taxpayer funds sent to their district to pay these scientists to research such possibilities. Now, we can't have results too quickly or the funds would dry up and the jobs would disappear.

Government seems to be the real culprit to me, not Capitalism.

Frankly, government intervention is a problem. Just not related to this topic. And I think you've blinded yourself with hatred of government intervention so as to think that anything can be traced to the ills of government intervention.

mlyonsd
11-27-2009, 03:43 AM
WTF? Are you guys vampires or something? Don't you ever sleep?

Or maybe Werewolves. Ha ha, I think I'm hung over.

KCWolfman
11-27-2009, 03:46 AM
Funding isn't the issue. It's when they take breaks or discoveries and rush them out the door for profit. It's when they start trying to make hand over fist on green products - some of which aren't really green.

It most certainly is an issue. Create a scare and garner government funds. It has worked masterfully in the past



I would like to point out that it was somewhat difficult to get funding for embryonic stem cell research. So, I don't know that it's entirely true. Further, just because scientists found a way around embryonic stem cells to help certain cases, doesn't mean they're useless or were rightly deserving of no funding.
I never stated it was useless, I stated at the current juncture there is not enough evidence to support further testing for profitable results, else a large corporation would have already jumped on it. Since they haven't, scientists ask a congressman for money instead



Usually, in science, you start with a hypothesis and then test it. Usually, you need funding to test it. So, I don't see the problem with funding experimental ideas. In fact, you say we do such a thing up at the top. The difference is corporations do it.
No problem at all. If it seems a lucrative idea a company will fund it.



No one is arguing capitalism drove science to false results. No one.



Are you actually saying Pfizer doesn't have failed R&D projects? Not at all. The difference is that Pfizer will dump failed research to obtain profits from another venture, while the government will accept bent results as they are not as savvy as the corporation in the sciences and the government has no desire to make or turn a profit from results. However, as long as the government has the scare, they will continue to reap profit for their district



Frankly, government intervention is a problem. Just not related to this topic. And I think you've blinded yourself with hatred of government intervention so as to think that anything can be traced to the ills of government intervention.

I don't hate the government at all. I just think it is too big and has more focus and power than it deserves. And I bet most of the founding fathers would agree with me if they saw the power and money wielded by the Federal Government today.

Saul Good
11-27-2009, 08:16 AM
I took his statement to mean that the US's contributions to science dwarf the rest of history's contributions combined. I thought that because he felt that your original point still stood up. If he meant that the US's contributions "over the last 75 years" dwarf the rest of the world's contributions over the last 75 years then I will agree with him.

Then we agree.

patteeu
11-27-2009, 08:29 AM
I expressed a view in an earlier thread that can be summed up thusly:



Now, I finally get around to reading my "to-read" queue (Instapaper + Readability, something I should have a thread on as it's very, very useful. Even when I misuse it, like I do now. I digress.) I get this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200911/brownlee-h1n1

It contains the following passages:


Again and again, I'm left with the notion that perhaps it is capitalism that is ruining science. That is, sound science - the meat and potatoes of discovery - is being ruined by corporations trying to capitalize - and do it fast.

I see it in Global Warming, where the science is sound as can be, yet corporations are trying to capitalize which has galvanized people against the science itself. I see it in Anti-Vaccination people and arguments.

Yet, simultaneously, those staunch - how should I say this - proponents of junk science, are equally staunch capitalism defenders. And I can't see why.

Thoughts?

1. What makes you a reasonable judge of whether the science in the Global Warming debate is "sound as can be"?

2. If you think errant group-think is a problem in health care issues today, just wait until most of that "thinking" is centralized in a government committee somewhere.

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 01:12 PM
It most certainly is an issue. Create a scare and garner government funds. It has worked masterfully in the past

Yes, it is an issue since you've made it an issue within this thread. However, it is an issue independent of this thread's OP.

I never stated it was useless, I stated at the current juncture there is not enough evidence to support further testing for profitable results, else a large corporation would have already jumped on it. Since they haven't, scientists ask a congressman for money instead

Which, again, has nothing to do with the OP but rather with your invented issue within this thread.


No problem at all. If it seems a lucrative idea a company will fund it.

Then why did you say what you said?

Not at all. The difference is that Pfizer will dump failed research to obtain profits from another venture, while the government will accept bent results as they are not as savvy as the corporation in the sciences and the government has no desire to make or turn a profit from results. However, as long as the government has the scare, they will continue to reap profit for their district

I'd like to see some proof of these claims your making. Specific examples of things the government knows are failing and are still funding - scientifically (since we all know War on Drugs and abstinence only ed is failing etc).

So, the government has no desire to make or turn a profit but they'll still reap and profit for their district via their scare they manufactured to get a profit in the first place? Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:


I don't hate the government at all. I just think it is too big and has more focus and power than it deserves. And I bet most of the founding fathers would agree with me if they saw the power and money wielded by the Federal Government today.

No argument here. But your issue isn't really related to the OP nor is it, IMO, really an issue. At least not until there's some concrete facts to back up what your rambling about.

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 01:15 PM
1. What makes you a reasonable judge of whether the science in the Global Warming debate is "sound as can be"?

I'll retract. It is sound. "As can be" is poor word choice on my part.

As for why I think it's sound... Well, the principles are borderline obvious and at the very least common sensical. That's the first basis. Plus, I've seen enough and read enough on the topic to be pretty informed. Am I tiptap? No. Course even tiptap, with all the evidence in the world, gets more crap in this forum than he should have to put up with. I applaud his efforts in defending the position and science.


2. If you think errant group-think is a problem in health care issues today, just wait until most of that "thinking" is centralized in a government committee somewhere.

Am I missing a portion of a conversation we had? I'm not following.

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 01:30 PM
WTF? Are you guys vampires or something? Don't you ever sleep?

Or maybe Werewolves. Ha ha, I think I'm hung over.

Working retail on black friday...


Yeah, the job market sucks.

KCWolfman
11-27-2009, 01:38 PM
So, the government has no desire to make or turn a profit but they'll still reap and profit for their district via their scare they manufactured to get a profit in the first place? Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:




The government is the only "corporation" which is not necessary to turn a profit to continue long term. There is no reason for a profit to be made from any product subsidized by them.

The government isnt concerned with profit, they are concerned with power. Increased funds to specific districts increases power to those districts.

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 01:40 PM
The government is the only "corporation" which is not necessary to turn a profit to continue long term. There is no reason for a profit to be made from any product subsidized by them.

The government isnt concerned with profit, they are concerned with power. Increased funds to specific districts increases power to those districts.

You've talked yourself in circles for so long you've wrapped yourself with your cord.

Regardless, it still has nothing to do with the OP's topic.

KCWolfman
11-27-2009, 01:42 PM
You've talked yourself in circles for so long you've wrapped yourself with your cord.

Regardless, it still has nothing to do with the OP's topic.

I had no idea we were required to stay on topic on the threads, especially when someone disagrees with your reasoning and presents their own.

I guess we had better start deleting 90% of the threads on the board

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 01:44 PM
I had no idea we were required to stay on topic on the threads, especially when someone disagrees with your reasoning and presents their own.

I guess we had better start deleting 90% of the threads on the board

No, but your point is moot. It doesn't really have anything to do with my reasoning. Nor does it present your own reasoning. Unless you count your reasoning being an entirely different topic.

KCWolfman
11-27-2009, 01:53 PM
No, but your point is moot. It doesn't really have anything to do with my reasoning. Nor does it present your own reasoning. Unless you count your reasoning being an entirely different topic.

Umm sure.....
Posted via Mobile Device

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 02:05 PM
Umm sure.....
Posted via Mobile Device

Look, you disagreed and presented government intervention as the problem, which would have been good. Except for the small fact that you haven't really said any of substance to support it. You've just talked in circles.

BucEyedPea
11-27-2009, 05:51 PM
Absolutely NOT! It's one best, if not the best, facilitators of scientific sentiment since discoveries lead to new products/services to sell or aid in them being sold. I'd say committees are anti-scientific.....even if they have much scientific sentiment. Lofty scientific rhetoric is not the same. They're anti-scientific because science requires thinking out of the box and disagreement with one's peers. Committees don't encourage such things. Govt is just one big committee. So it falls under the anti-scientific sentiment even if it claims otherwise. Frauds!

irishjayhawk
11-27-2009, 10:12 PM
Absolutely NOT! It's one best, if not the best, facilitators of scientific sentiment since discoveries lead to new products/services to sell or aid in them being sold. I'd say committees are anti-scientific.....even if they have much scientific sentiment. Lofty scientific rhetoric is not the same. They're anti-scientific because science requires thinking out of the box and disagreement with one's peers. Committees don't encourage such things. Govt is just one big committee. So it falls under the anti-scientific sentiment even if it claims otherwise. Frauds!

So, then, in the GW debate, specifically, you think it's junk science to begin with?

patteeu
11-28-2009, 07:12 AM
I'll retract. It is sound. "As can be" is poor word choice on my part.

As for why I think it's sound... Well, the principles are borderline obvious and at the very least common sensical. That's the first basis. Plus, I've seen enough and read enough on the topic to be pretty informed. Am I tiptap? No. Course even tiptap, with all the evidence in the world, gets more crap in this forum than he should have to put up with. I applaud his efforts in defending the position and science.

No offense, but I don't think you have the scientific expertise to evaluate the claims you've read. I'm not even sure tiptap does, although I'd be the first to admit that he's got more scientific expertise than I do.

Am I missing a portion of a conversation we had? I'm not following.

In your OP, you quote a section of the Atlantic article about how ineffective treatments come to be considered the only reasonable treatment based on the slimmest of evidence. You blamed it on capitalism, but what you didn't seem to consider is that the reason false science becomes widely accepted is because of our tendency toward a herd mentality that will only be worse when the government is choosing which treatments should be covered by insurance and which ones shouldn't be.

BucEyedPea
11-28-2009, 01:08 PM
So, then, in the GW debate, specifically, you think it's junk science to begin with?

What does this have to do with what I said?

irishjayhawk
11-29-2009, 09:24 AM
No offense, but I don't think you have the scientific expertise to evaluate the claims you've read. I'm not even sure tiptap does, although I'd be the first to admit that he's got more scientific expertise than I do.

I'm not going to claim I'm a huge scientist or heavily invested in the field. That said, I read much of what those pros produce. Interestingly, almost every anti-GW person disregards any "climatologist".

If not tiptap, who would have enough expertise? And what kind of expertise are you looking for?

Realclimate has experts all over. It's basically a group of experts. Yet, it's constantly tossed aside as a dubious source. So, where do you draw the line, pat?



In your OP, you quote a section of the Atlantic article about how ineffective treatments come to be considered the only reasonable treatment based on the slimmest of evidence. You blamed it on capitalism, but what you didn't seem to consider is that the reason false science becomes widely accepted is because of our tendency toward a herd mentality that will only be worse when the government is choosing which treatments should be covered by insurance and which ones shouldn't be.

No, I blamed capitalism because they rushed things out onto the public before proper testing was done. Which is what I quoted. I guess I should have bolded it.

It's much like the H1N1 vaccine that everyone is so quick to blame the scientific community or government when it's the corporations who are a) manufacturing it and b) the ones who are making the profit.

My point is very simple: why is science constantly blamed when it's capitalism that's rushing things out for a quick buck?

What does this have to do with what I said?

It seemed you were divided in your post. On the one hand, you wanted to solely blame committees (I'm not sure which ones you're even referring to). So I decided to extrapolate to a real world example of Global warming.

Do you think GW is a science produced by committees and therefore "junk" or "anti-scientific"?

patteeu
11-29-2009, 10:01 AM
I'm not going to claim I'm a huge scientist or heavily invested in the field. That said, I read much of what those pros produce. Interestingly, almost every anti-GW person disregards any "climatologist".

If not tiptap, who would have enough expertise? And what kind of expertise are you looking for?

Realclimate has experts all over. It's basically a group of experts. Yet, it's constantly tossed aside as a dubious source. So, where do you draw the line, pat?

The line is drawn somewhere beyond the two of us. Neither of us is competent to pass judgment on most of the competing claims of the climate combatants. We can choose experts to trust, but neither of us can judge whether their science is really sound.

No, I blamed capitalism because they rushed things out onto the public before proper testing was done. Which is what I quoted. I guess I should have bolded it.

It's much like the H1N1 vaccine that everyone is so quick to blame the scientific community or government when it's the corporations who are a) manufacturing it and b) the ones who are making the profit.

My point is very simple: why is science constantly blamed when it's capitalism that's rushing things out for a quick buck?

Whatever your point is and whatever truth there may or may not be to it, you're still ignoring the point I made. It wasn't supposed to be a rejection of your point, it was supposed to be another problem along the same lines. The rush to make a profit isn't the only problem here, but it seems to be the only problem you can recognize.

Another related problem is the media's desire to amplify the sensational while ignoring the mundane. This explains some of the hysteria over the H1N1 vaccination. The cost of a possible side effect is widely reported while the actual benefit is under-emphasized.

Science isn't innocent either. The personal ambitions of scientists have led to scientific fraud on more than one occasion. And I guess you can call it capitalism if you want, but scientists are subject to the influence of greed for grant money just like any other person.

I think you put too much of the blame on capitalism. And I notice that you don't acknowledge the danger of putting so many eggs into a single basket by letting a central government committee decide what treatments ought to be covered by insurance and what treatments ought to be denied.

irishjayhawk
11-29-2009, 03:10 PM
The line is drawn somewhere beyond the two of us. Neither of us is competent to pass judgment on most of the competing claims of the climate combatants. We can choose experts to trust, but neither of us can judge whether their science is really sound.

I can agree with this.



Whatever your point is and whatever truth there may or may not be to it, you're still ignoring the point I made. It wasn't supposed to be a rejection of your point, it was supposed to be another problem along the same lines. The rush to make a profit isn't the only problem here, but it seems to be the only problem you can recognize.

Another related problem is the media's desire to amplify the sensational while ignoring the mundane. This explains some of the hysteria over the H1N1 vaccination. The cost of a possible side effect is widely reported while the actual benefit is under-emphasized.

I agree, the media is a big issue.


Science isn't innocent either. The personal ambitions of scientists have led to scientific fraud on more than one occasion. And I guess you can call it capitalism if you want, but scientists are subject to the influence of greed for grant money just like any other person.

No doubt. That's not what I'm calling captialism to the carpet for. It's not the funding, it's the rushing judgment on breaks or discoveries. Essentially, rushing and capitalizing on a produce before it's ready. When they do this, the science and scientists get the blame more oft than not. And most of those divving the blame are those staunch defenders of capitalism. (ie. TJ)

And I don't get that.


I think you put too much of the blame on capitalism. And I notice that you don't acknowledge the danger of putting so many eggs into a single basket by letting a central government committee decide what treatments ought to be covered by insurance and what treatments ought to be denied.

Certainly, I'm not blaming only captialism or trying to say it deserves all the blame.

Now, I don't see the difference between what we have now (insurance comittees) and a "central government committee". As it stands, we already have all our eggs in that basekt.

Taco John
11-29-2009, 03:12 PM
TJ? Amnorix? tiptap? Adept? banyon?

I'd rather this not become another hysteria/paranoia thread as it looks like it's headed for with the current circle jerk.


*yawn*

irishjayhawk
11-29-2009, 03:15 PM
*yawn*

Well, that was productive. Thanks for contributing! :rolleyes:

patteeu
11-29-2009, 03:53 PM
Now, I don't see the difference between what we have now (insurance comittees) and a "central government committee". As it stands, we already have all our eggs in that basekt.

No, at worst what we have now is all of our bags in several competing baskets. At best, we still have doctors driving these insurance limitations.

petegz28
11-29-2009, 05:07 PM
LMAO.......your "sound as can be" science was recently exposed to be a huge fraud.

ROFL


so lets blame capitalism

irishjayhawk
11-29-2009, 06:03 PM
LMAO.......your "sound as can be" science was recently exposed to be a huge fraud.

ROFL


so lets blame capitalism

Can you please point out where it was exposed as a fraud? Details please.

irishjayhawk
11-29-2009, 06:05 PM
No, at worst what we have now is all of our bags in several competing baskets. At best, we still have doctors driving these insurance limitations.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

petegz28
11-29-2009, 07:00 PM
Can you please point out where it was exposed as a fraud? Details please.

Try the intra-web

irishjayhawk
11-29-2009, 07:23 PM
Try the intra-web

Translation: I'm lazy or I've got nothing.

petegz28
11-29-2009, 08:13 PM
Translation: I'm lazy or I've got nothing.

Translation: you are not with the now.

irishjayhawk
11-29-2009, 08:16 PM
Translation: you are not with the now.

I guess it's true. You can't argue with some people, err dining room tables.

Norman Einstein
11-29-2009, 08:43 PM
Translation: I'm lazy or I've got nothing.

Translation: you are not with the now.

Translation: You are both pillowbiters, as perscribed by one of the BW on this board.

petegz28
11-29-2009, 09:30 PM
Translation: You are both pillowbiters, as perscribed by one of the BW on this board.

Translation: You suck the best weeny!

Norman Einstein
11-29-2009, 10:07 PM
Translation: You suck the best weeny!

Wow, you tend to have homosexual tendencies. I suggest you go to homoworld.com and become a flagship member.

BTW, you are an idiot on your good days.

Taco John
11-29-2009, 10:20 PM
Well, that was productive. Thanks for contributing! :rolleyes:

The entire premise of your thread is hebetudinous and I don't care enough about the topic to bother to try to make a go of it. I'll leave it to you and pete and moT to argue which one is most gay.

irishjayhawk
11-30-2009, 04:44 AM
The entire premise of your thread is hebetudinous and I don't care enough about the topic to bother to try to make a go of it. I'll leave it to you and pete and moT to argue which one is most gay.

Well, I can't say I'm surprised. You are one of capitalism's most staunch defenders.

Norman Einstein
11-30-2009, 05:46 AM
The entire premise of your thread is hebetudinous and I don't care enough about the topic to bother to try to make a go of it. I'll leave it to you and pete to argue which one is most gay.

HEY CHIEFS BOARD, TACO JOHN LEARNED A NEW WORD! ROFL

And its from one of the lesser wattage posters around.

Reaper16
11-30-2009, 08:00 AM
HEY CHIEFS BOARD, TACO JOHN LEARNED A NEW WORD! ROFL

And its from one of the lesser wattage posters around.
I'm sure you just did, too.

petegz28
11-30-2009, 02:07 PM
Wow, you tend to have homosexual tendencies. I suggest you go to homoworld.com and become a flagship member.

BTW, you are an idiot on your good days.

And you're still one who sucks the penis.

Norman Einstein
11-30-2009, 08:59 PM
And you're still one who sucks the penis.


If that's your only response we all know what you have on your mind. I wouldn't let you suck my dogs penis, I think more of him than that. You'll have to go find a love muscle somewhere else.

Norman Einstein
11-30-2009, 09:00 PM
I'm sure you just did, too.

No, but I'm sure you knew that. I'm happy for you that you actually spelled your sentence correctly. Your punctuation still sucks though.

petegz28
11-30-2009, 09:29 PM
No, but I'm sure you knew that. I'm happy for you that you actually spelled your sentence correctly. Your punctuation still sucks though.

So do you...and damn good I hear

Norman Einstein
12-01-2009, 04:37 AM
So do you...and damn good I hear

Considering you are morally deaf, I doubt I'd have a problem.

Your punctuation is still substandard, my guess is that it is a lifetime trait in all aspects of your life.

petegz28
12-01-2009, 05:51 AM
Considering you are morally deaf, I doubt I'd have a problem.

Your punctuation is still substandard, my guess is that it is a lifetime trait in all aspects of your life.

I doubt you have a problem puffing the peter as well.

Reaper16
12-01-2009, 10:37 AM
No, but I'm sure you knew that. I'm happy for you that you actually spelled your sentence correctly. Your punctuation still sucks though.
Of all the patently false things you've posted this is in the upper-most echelon.

Norman Einstein
12-01-2009, 05:14 PM
Of all the patently false things you've posted this is in the upper-most echelon.

Originally Posted by Reaper16
I'm sure you just did, too.


Reap this .|..

Reaper16
12-01-2009, 05:28 PM
Originally Posted by Reaper16
I'm sure you just did, too.


Reap this .|..
I don't know what ".|.." means, so that zinger is lost on me.

If you are referring to my use of a comma before the word "too" then you mistakenly think I made an error. It is a stylistic choice -- there is no set rule about comma usage with the word "too."

BIG_DADDY
12-01-2009, 05:30 PM
Irishgayhawk with another stupid thread.

Sound science = what Irishgayhawk believes
Junk Science = what Irishgayhawk doesn't believe

what a waste of time.

Norman Einstein
12-01-2009, 06:04 PM
I don't know what ".|.." means, so that zinger is lost on me.

If you are referring to my use of a comma before the word "too" then you mistakenly think I made an error. It is a stylistic choice -- there is no set rule about comma usage with the word "too."

Try going back to grammar school and try that one again.

.|.. = nlm

Reaper16
12-01-2009, 06:25 PM
Try going back to grammar school and try that one again.

.|.. = nlm
Seriously. There isn't a rule against it. My usage was entirely fine.

Norman Einstein
12-01-2009, 07:03 PM
Seriously. There isn't a rule against it. My usage was entirely fine.

Only in your mind. Just because you believe it to be OK does not mean the rules of grammar has changed to accomodate your crappy writing.

Sully
12-01-2009, 07:51 PM
Only in your mind. Just because you believe it to be OK does not mean the rules of grammar has changed to accomodate your crappy writing.

ROFL

Reaper16
12-01-2009, 08:30 PM
Only in your mind. Just because you believe it to be OK does not mean the rules of grammar has changed to accomodate your crappy writing.
The rules of grammar don't consider a comma before "too" to be an error. Your whole point is as moot as your posting shtick was for the last 5 usernames, Tom.

Speaking of "rules of grammar," pluralizing "rule" would dictate that you change the verb "has" to "have."

Norman Einstein
12-02-2009, 03:34 AM
The rules of grammar don't consider a comma before "too" to be an error. Your whole point is as moot as your posting shtick was for the last 5 usernames, Tom.

Speaking of "rules of grammar," pluralizing "rule" would dictate that you change the verb "has" to "have."


Your cut and paste ability is quite amazing. Go back to grammar school and ask Miss Jones about your punctuation.

You should change your mode of operation from asswipe to poster, it might be a good change from your current style.

Reaper16
12-02-2009, 06:17 AM
Your cut and paste ability is quite amazing. Go back to grammar school and ask Miss Jones about your punctuation.

You should change your mode of operation from asswipe to poster, it might be a good change from your current style.
My cut and paste ability? Are you drunk already?

patteeu
12-02-2009, 07:02 AM
CTTCS_WLR,

Just because people have figured out your real identity doesn't mean you have to act like a fool. Go back to acting like you're trying to hide your identity and we'll all be better off. BTW, Reaper's grammar is fine. It's the rest of his game that's messed up.