It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 5:08 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 110 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
SABRESAllTheWay
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:16 pm 
Offline
MegaDouche
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:41 am
Posts: 2752
Location: Fairfax, VA
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ ... ?fb=native
Quote:
Most scientists, on achieving high office, keep their public remarks to the bland and reassuring. Last week Nina Fedoroff, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), broke ranks in a spectacular manner.

She confessed that she was now "scared to death" by the anti-science movement that was spreading, uncontrolled, across the US and the rest of the western world.

"We are sliding back into a dark era," she said. "And there seems little we can do about it. I am profoundly depressed at just how difficult it has become merely to get a realistic conversation started on issues such as climate change or genetically modified organisms."

The remarks of Fedoroff, one of the world's most distinguished agricultural scientists, are all the more remarkable given their setting.

She made them at the AAAS annual meeting, an event at which scientists normally revel in their latest accomplishments: new insights into marine biology or first results from a recently launched satellite, for example.

But this year there has been a palpable chill to proceedings. Yes, good work was reported to the 8,000 who attended the various symposia and lectures at the meeting in Vancouver.

However, these pronouncements were set against a background of an entire intellectual discipline that realises that it, and its practitioners, are now under sustained attack.

As Fedoroff pointed out, university and government researchers are hounded for arguing that rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are changing the climate. Their emails are hacked while Facebook campaigns call for their dismissal from their posts, calls that are often backed by rightwing politicians. At the last Republican party debate in Florida, Rick Santorum insisted he should be the presidential nominee simply because he had cottoned on earlier than his rivals Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney to the "hoax" of global warming.

"Those of us who grew up in the sixties, when we put men on the Moon, now have to watch as every Republican candidate for this year's presidential election denies the science behind climate change and evolution. That is a staggering state of affairs and it is very worrying," said Professor Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego.

Oreskes is co-author, with Erik Conway, of Merchants of Doubt, an investigation into the links between corporate business interests and campaigns in the US aimed at blocking the introduction of environmental and medical measures such as bans on smoking and the use of DDT, laws to limit acid rain, legislation to end the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere and attempts to curb carbon dioxide emissions.

In each case, legislation was delayed by years, sometimes decades, thanks to the activities of a variety of foundations – such as the Heartland Institute – which are backed by energy companies such as Exxon and billionaires like Charles Koch.

These institutions, acting as covers for major energy corporations, are responsible for the onslaught that has deeply lowered the reputation of science in many people's minds in America. This has come in the form of personal attacks on the reputations of scientists and television adverts that undermine environment laws. The Environmental Protection Agency, which is responsible for blocking mining and drilling proposals that might harm threatened species or habitats, has become a favourite target.

"Our present crisis over the rise of anti-science has been coming for a long time and we should have seen it coming," adds Oreskes.

This point was backed by Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), although she added that one specific event had brought matters to a head this year: the decision by the United States supreme court to overrule the law that allowed the federal government to place limits on independent spending for political purposes by business corporations.

"That has opened the gates for corporations – often those associated with coal and oil industries – to flood the market with adverts that support rightwing politicians and which attack government bodies that impose environmental regulations that these companies don't like," she said. "The science that supports these regulations is attacked as well. That has made a terrible difference over the past year and it is now bringing matters to a head."

Her remarks are backed by a UCS report, Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public's Expense, which was published at the Vancouver meeting on Friday. It chronicles the methods used by corporate businesses to attack their targets: harassing individual scientists, ghost-writing scientific articles to raise doubts about government research, and undermining the use of science to form government policy.

"People may believe that political interference in science went extinct when George W. Bush left office, but the reality is that the pressure to politicise science is still with us," added Grifo.

Most scientists acknowledge that President Barack Obama is sympathetic to science. "The trouble is that he still hasn't been able to do anything to help. He is continually blocked by Congress, and that only adds to our worries and sense of desperation," said Fedoroff. "If the current president is for us, but still cannot do anything to help us, then what will happen if a Republican gets into the White House this year?"

In general, the worst excesses of the anti-science lobbies are confined to the US. However, there are signs that their influence is spreading, and that raises worrying issues, said Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, in London.

"In coming years, we will have to ask ourselves if public policies should be based on the advice of experts who have carried out robust and rigorous analysis of the evidence, or if they should be guided by lobbyists who appear driven by narrow ideological dogma.

"The answer may seem obvious, but we should be aware of the efforts being made in the UK to promote ideology over rational evidence-based decision-making, particularly when it comes to climate issues," said Ward.

Just how this rise of anti-science antagonism pans out in the end remains unclear.

"It has taken the scientific community a long time to realise what it is up against," says Oreskes. "In the past, it thought the problem was just a matter of education. All its practitioners had to do was make an effort to reach out and talk to teachers, the public and business leaders. Then these people would see the issues and understand the need for action.

"But now they are beginning to realise what they are really up against: massive organised attempts to undermine scientific data by people for whom that data represents a threat to their status quo. Given the power of these people, scientists will have their work cut out dealing with them."

:doh: :snooty:

Please, save science...

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
NYIntensity
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:29 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 4463
I'm with this guy ^^^

_________________
ksquier89 wrote:
Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:43 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Oh but they're just using global warming to cash in on those FAT RESEARCH GRANTS. That's my favorite one. As if there's more money in conducting experiments than catering to corporations. Well, it's all worked. Crosscheck will tell you there's no proof of global warming, and he's much smarter than most of the people who allow their ideology (and/or self-interest) to blind them to objectivity. We're fucked.


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:48 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7475
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Oh FFS...was she late to drama class?
Willfully ignorant people will remain so and that's not new.

That statement about all the Republican candidates being global warming "deniers" is just factually fucking wrong.
John Huntsman went to the mat for that shit.

Don't scientists do research before opening their obviously politically biased mouths?
I guess not.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:59 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Crosscheck wrote:
Oh FFS...was she late to drama class?
Willfully ignorant people will remain so and that's not new.

That statement about all the Republican candidates being global warming "deniers" is just factually fucking wrong.
John Huntsman went to the mat for that shit.

Don't scientists do research before opening their obviously politically biased mouths?
I guess not.

So what you're taking issue with here is that only SOME of the GOP presidential candidates are "deniers"? I'm fine with tht and I don't think it changes the thrust of the article one bit. That's that those studies that you used to love to tout that "call into question" global warming are the ones that are politically motivated. And all you have to do is follow their funding to know that.


Top
 Profile  
 
YankeeInRaleigh
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:33 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:58 pm
Posts: 2631
Location: Take a guess...
Crosscheck wrote:
John Huntsman went to the mat for that shit.




Um...is that meant to support or attack your argument? He didnt deny evolution, or climate change...the right would never elect him to anything after that.


Top
 Profile  
 
NYIntensity
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:34 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 4463
That's why neither he nor Ron Paul will get the right's "nod"... they don't conform like that.

_________________
ksquier89 wrote:
Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Squanto
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:56 pm 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
Crosscheck wrote:
Oh FFS...was she late to drama class?
Willfully ignorant people will remain so and that's not new.

That statement about all the Republican candidates being global warming "deniers" is just factually fucking wrong.
John Huntsman went to the mat for that shit.

Don't scientists do research before opening their obviously politically biased mouths?
I guess not.


The problem is that the willfully ignorant keep getting elected. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
NYIntensity
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:57 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 4463
Aren't the elected officials (supposedly) a direct representation of their constituents?

_________________
ksquier89 wrote:
Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:59 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7475
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
So what you're taking issue with here is that only SOME of the GOP presidential candidates are "deniers"? I'm fine with tht and I don't think it changes the thrust of the article one bit. That's that those studies that you used to love to tout that "call into question" global warming are the ones that are politically motivated. And all you have to do is follow their funding to know that.


What I'm taking issue with is this:
Quote:
"Those of us who grew up in the sixties, when we put men on the Moon, now have to watch as every Republican candidate for this year's presidential election denies the science behind climate change and evolution. That is a staggering state of affairs and it is very worrying,"


You know...because it's a lie.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Squanto
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:00 pm 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
NYIntensity wrote:
Aren't the elected officials (supposedly) a direct representation of their constituents?


That hasn't been true in a long time.


Top
 Profile  
 
YankeeInRaleigh
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:04 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:58 pm
Posts: 2631
Location: Take a guess...
Crosscheck wrote:
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
So what you're taking issue with here is that only SOME of the GOP presidential candidates are "deniers"? I'm fine with tht and I don't think it changes the thrust of the article one bit. That's that those studies that you used to love to tout that "call into question" global warming are the ones that are politically motivated. And all you have to do is follow their funding to know that.


What I'm taking issue with is this:
Quote:
"Those of us who grew up in the sixties, when we put men on the Moon, now have to watch as every Republican candidate for this year's presidential election denies the science behind climate change and evolution. That is a staggering state of affairs and it is very worrying,"


You know...because it's a lie.



You're right, she definitely mis-spoke. It should have been "Every SERIOUS republican candidate..."
or "every republican candidate who actually has a chance on this green earth of being the nominee"


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:19 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7475
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Huntsman was one of the more serious candidates...that was his problem.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Sabresfansince1980
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:39 pm 
Offline
Star Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:45 pm
Posts: 3021
Location: So far away
This is such a blatently political commentary, no, editorial, that it shouldn't be used for any objective conversation.

Clearly, some technologies, corporations, and even individual scientists are compromised by political slant or money. To argue one side or the other is more wrong about it is silly. For now, since oil and gas remain the established fuel supplies, those companies are easy targets with their huge annual profits. Turn the tables and any "green" company out there would be hauling in profits and protecting their interests with vast amounts of lobbying money.

It never fails that when people discuss global warming, they don't acknowledge that it is a two-pronged issue...
1- Global warming is happening and most people, even "evil" repubs, don't deny that.
2- Global warming AND cooling occur on a regular basis, the earth is right on schedule early on in a warming cycle, and there's really no good way right now to determine if or how much humans actually affect that cycle.

The 2nd issue is where there are huge differences of opinion, but many people take one iota of skepticism about human cause and run off the cliff screaming that the deny-ers are killing science, Bambi and Thumper, while an indian cries somewhere.

How many posters here, just out of curiosity, realize that the earth goes through an ice age about every 100,000 years, and the last one was only 11,000 years ago? That means we're just barely on the upswing of a warming period, with about 90,000 years to go before cooling off again. We still have around 5 or so degrees to go before we reach the highest average temperature the earth has ever experienced. So that means - global warming...get used to it because it's going to continue for a LONG time no matter how many windmills and solar panels are used to shift lobbying money and votes from one party to another.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html


Top
 Profile  
 
ironyisadeadscene
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:26 pm 
Offline
Captain Dynasty
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:01 pm
Posts: 15390
Location: michigan
Sabresfansince1980 wrote:
This is such a blatently political commentary, no, editorial, that it shouldn't be used for any objective conversation.

Clearly, some technologies, corporations, and even individual scientists are compromised by political slant or money. To argue one side or the other is more wrong about it is silly. For now, since oil and gas remain the established fuel supplies, those companies are easy targets with their huge annual profits. Turn the tables and any "green" company out there would be hauling in profits and protecting their interests with vast amounts of lobbying money.

It never fails that when people discuss global warming, they don't acknowledge that it is a two-pronged issue...
1- Global warming is happening and most people, even "evil" repubs, don't deny that.
2- Global warming AND cooling occur on a regular basis, the earth is right on schedule early on in a warming cycle, and there's really no good way right now to determine if or how much humans actually affect that cycle.

The 2nd issue is where there are huge differences of opinion, but many people take one iota of skepticism about human cause and run off the cliff screaming that the deny-ers are killing science, Bambi and Thumper, while an indian cries somewhere.

How many posters here, just out of curiosity, realize that the earth goes through an ice age about every 100,000 years, and the last one was only 11,000 years ago? That means we're just barely on the upswing of a warming period, with about 90,000 years to go before cooling off again. We still have around 5 or so degrees to go before we reach the highest average temperature the earth has ever experienced. So that means - global warming...get used to it because it's going to continue for a LONG time no matter how many windmills and solar panels are used to shift lobbying money and votes from one party to another.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html


absolutely correct. but youd think global warming, or climate change, is a taboo subject with some conservatives. some blatantly say that we are not hurting the earth, at all.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PatGreen
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:16 am 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
Crosscheck wrote:
Huntsman was one of the more serious candidates...that was his problem.

huntsman was the most qualified and best candidate. his refusal to mudsling and be ridiculous is why he was forced out.

i can't tell you guys how frustrating it is to have my job and lifestyle be completely under attack all the time because of this. yes, there are cycles the earth goes in. yes, this would have changed before.

it's completely asinine to pretend that humans have nothing to do with any of this, whether it's acceleration of the cycle or growing volume of effect. ugh.


Top
 Profile  
 
Sabresfansince1980
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:33 am 
Offline
Star Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:45 pm
Posts: 3021
Location: So far away
Irony, some conservatives may very well think that. I don't keep a roster of where politicians fall on the issue. We'd be better off waiting for further research, or more specific answers of more specific questions about the issue before we paint any group of people or politicians as "the bad guy". I think some politicians see the issue as a power/money/vote grab more than an actual concern for the earth, so while they fight against the power grab they are also painted as anti-environment.

Pat, I don't know what your job or lifestyle is, but why is it asinine to question how much effect humans have on global warming? To deny any causation at all might be asinine, but on the other hand the causation might be so insignificant that all the lobbying for green energy sources may be extrememly overblown. First, not knowing the human impact is a problem, then to have other countries get on board with green technologies is mostly a waste of time. China and Russia account for the majority of carbon emissions and won't do a damn thing that might reduce their economic viability. That means any effort the US or any other country makes is miniscule or even nullified.

To place a bunch of blame on the GOP for a problem that is not fully known with a solution that is nearly unattainable is simply a blatent political ploy.


Top
 Profile  
 
NYIntensity
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:49 am 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 4463
I don't think you can "overblow" or "understate" the need for green energy sources.

I'm willing to bet that if I purchased land that had a river running through it, and I built a watermill (or some form of my own hydroelectric power), that the government would FINE me, if not send me to jail. Not sure why, but I'm pretty sure it would.

Yeah, I've considered doing the above. Still do, actually.

_________________
ksquier89 wrote:
Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:33 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
PatGreen wrote:
Crosscheck wrote:
Huntsman was one of the more serious candidates...that was his problem.

huntsman was the most qualified and best candidate. his refusal to mudsling and be ridiculous is why he was forced out.

i can't tell you guys how frustrating it is to have my job and lifestyle be completely under attack all the time because of this. yes, there are cycles the earth goes in. yes, this would have changed before.

it's completely asinine to pretend that humans have nothing to do with any of this, whether it's acceleration of the cycle or growing volume of effect. ugh.

Yes, people have a natural cooling period (dying) that happens to them too. But guess what, they can do things to speed up that process (eating shit food, smoking, drugs, obesity). To me, saying the earth is in a natural warming period and taking away all human accountability is akin to saying that since you're going to die anyway, there's no sense taking care of your body.


Top
 Profile  
 
Squanto
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:35 pm 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
NYIntensity wrote:
I don't think you can "overblow" or "understate" the need for green energy sources.

I'm willing to bet that if I purchased land that had a river running through it, and I built a watermill (or some form of my own hydroelectric power), that the government would FINE me, if not send me to jail. Not sure why, but I'm pretty sure it would.

Yeah, I've considered doing the above. Still do, actually.


No offense, but why would you just to this assumption?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 110 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron