Supreme Court rules "greenhouse gases" are air pollutants

[eaeolian]

Originally Posted by Durero

Indeed. And how many of those 'scientists' who believe otherwise have been paid to say so. The moment a scientist's work is influenced by money or political agenda it is no longer credible science.

Which is one of the reasons for peer review in journals, since this sort of thing is hardly new. However, since the Cons play to the media, they don't care if their "science" is peer-reviewed (it seldom is).

Again, people think opinion and fact are synonymous in the U.S., and it's not accidental...

[Durero]

Originally Posted by eaeolian

Which is one of the reasons for peer review in journals, since this sort of thing is hardly new. However, since the Cons play to the media, they don't care if their "science" is peer-reviewed (it seldom is).

Again, people think opinion and fact are synonymous in the U.S., and it's not accidental...

[BigM555]

Originally Posted by Durero

Indeed. And how many of those 'scientists' who believe otherwise have been paid to say so. The moment a scientist's work is influenced by money or political agenda it is no longer credible science.

This was really my point. Considering that most any scientist has a vested interest in maintaining grant money so that they can continue their research it's hard to assume that there is ANY work NOT influenced by money. Yes, peer review is one way of tempering this but it also seems to be fuel for the debate (there is one right? they said so on TV) that the current administration and media perpetuate.

My comment about being a centrist was mostly in jest as it pertians to environmental policy. I deeply believe we should all be taking environmental change (and our contributions toward it) VERY seriously.

I wouldn't consider myself a "fence sitter", that suggests inaction. I just prefer that highly paid politicians should actually THINK rather than tow party lines that tend to be too extreme one way or the other.

THIS is mainly why I claim to be a centrist.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I never considered that actually thinking about what the right course of action might be to be a bad thing.

I'm not sure which is more sinister: people willfully trying to turn climate change into a political debate instead of a scientific problem, or people having such an ineffective grasp of science that they honestly can't tell the difference between scientific study and political rhetoric.

You have caught an episode of "Are you smarter than a 5th Grader?" right? Still question why the masses can't tell the difference between rhetoric and science?

Heck, Dubbya got elected to a second term! Only now after he's royaly farked things up have the tides started to turn.

[Nik]

Originally Posted by noodles

I'm tired of this card being played by moderate conservatives who want to sit on the fence. Raw scientific data doesn't have a bias. It does not have a political view. It just is what it is. I don't know how melting ice caps and dwindling species numbers can be construed to have a bias in either direction. It is simple cause/effect, not conservative/liberal.

Cause: Higher levels of carbon-based gases in the atmosphere.
Effect: Rising temperatures across the globe.

If you can place a bias on that, then you can find a way to say 2+2=5 for extremely liberal views of the value of two, which is why we need to take a more conservative value of two, leading to 2+2=3.

You point out a fundemental flaw in the mindset of a vast majority of religious-right Americans, something that goes much deeper than Global Warming and politics. It was a somewhat shocking revelation when, while having a religious debate with a deeply religious friend of mine, I discovered that from a religious point of view, science is simply another godless religion, heavily biased by the mindset of the scientists themselves. It seems that most people, politicians or not, overlook the word 'raw' in 'raw data.'

All science stems from observation, and cold, hard, and indisputable facts. However, playing the devil's advocate, I would reply to your post in saying that scientists have an agenda they want to further, thus the data they collect helps further their agenda, and their interpretation of this data only furthers their agenda even further. It makes no difference what the raw data says, since the the pieces of raw data collected help serve the scientists's bias (and likewise, raw data not supporting their agenda would be omitted).

This is literally what came out of my religious friend's mouth, and what a politician would respond to your statement with. On top of wanting to sit on the fence, politicians saying stuff like this connects with the vast right-wing religious majority in the U.S.

Sad, but true.

I have set my friend right, though, since that conversation, so no worries there

Excellent post, BTW, + e-rep for you

[eaeolian]

Originally Posted by BigM555

THIS is mainly why I claim to be a centrist.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Heh. Being a centrist on that quiz is easy - just pick "M" for more than one answer. It's asking the wrong questions, anyway.

[noodles]

Originally Posted by Nik

All science stems from observation, and cold, hard, and indisputable facts. However, playing the devil's advocate, I would reply to your post in saying that scientists have an agenda they want to further, thus the data they collect helps further their agenda, and their interpretation of this data only furthers their agenda even further. It makes no difference what the raw data says, since the the pieces of raw data collected help serve the scientists' bias (and likewise, raw data not supporting their agenda would be omitted).

This is exactly why I try to avoid speaking to politicians. They think they are a ....ing expert in everything, when most of them really know next to nothing. Most politicians usually make it to office by being born in the right family, finding their way into a lot of money, or spinning past connections into a party nomination.

I suppose one could say most scientists have an agenda...if that agenda is discovering more about the natural world and how we have an effect on it. In my opinion, there are metric assloads of scientists shouldn't have to waste their valuable time trying to secure grant money. For example, if Dr. Joe Shmoe is conducting cancer research, why is this something that requires political debate? Don't we want to find a cure for cancer? In short, no, if you got the truth out of a lot of politicians. Find a cure for cancer, and then how are the drug companies supposed to make money?

I really hate the world we live in. As a general rule, science doesn't need much policing, because scientists are their own biggest critics. Try to put forth a new theory, and their are hundreds of people waiting to eviscerate you in scholarly journals. If you are an archaeologist digging past Clovis I, prepare to face professional assassination if you dare say that mankind made it to the new world before the land bridge was open. The last thing scientists need is a bunch of silly politicians who know nothing about their research trying to put some crazy slant on the raw data.

At one point in time, the world was flat. Period. Try to say otherwise, and you're getting excommunicated, tortured to "purify your soul", and ultimately executed. Considering the track record of religion on this planet, I give them absolutely zero credit when they speak on matters of science. Who am I going to listen to: the guy who has spent years exploring every possible hole in his theory from every possible source, or the guy who accepts one unproven source as absolutely infallible?

[noodles]

Originally Posted by BigM555

THIS is mainly why I claim to be a centrist.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Go take this one and get back to me.

[BigM555]

Originally Posted by noodles

Considering the track record of religion on this planet, I give them absolutely zero credit when they speak on matters of science. Who am I going to listen to: the guy who has spent years exploring every possible hole in his theory from every possible source, or the guy who accepts one unproven source as absolutely infallible?

x 1,000

Originally Posted by noodles

Go take this one and get back to me.

Will do.

Originally Posted by noodles

Go take this one and get back to me.

Not much different than I would have expected;

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23

Left leaning Libertarian, Go figure. (not really far off Centrist based on the short quiz).