[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant /img/forum/go_quote.gif . http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/sc..._r=1&th&emc=th

I don't see anything in there that is surprising or even wrong. All I see is a misleading headline and a lot of reaching.

As far as I can tell, this is what happened:

* Advocacy group commissions panel to write a primer.
* Panel comes to conclusion that advocacy group likes.
* Panel writes primer, includes caveats.
* Primer is approved by advocacy group, minus caveats.
* Primer is never distributed.

Ignoring of their own scientists? Unless there's some new definition of 'ignore' that I don't know about, that's a flat out false statement. And yes, the Global Climate Coalition is an advocacy group. As far as I know, there's no requirement for advocacy groups to fairly present the other side and sabotage their own arguments. What Global Climate Coalition is standard operating procedure for any advocacy group that isn't (a) insane (b) a false flag operation.

 

[HiFiRE]

Checkout this playlist on youtube. It's an accessible and scientific look at climate change.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax /img/forum/go_quote.gif Dr. Spencer is a fundamentalist creationist and right-wing activist. his research has been found to be flawed, and he has an obvious political and theological agenda. yeah... that grant money... woo hoo, talk about a shortcut to fabulous wealth. much more deeper pockets than, say, Exxon? and also, don't forget the conspiracy part... 97% of climatologists have banded together to game the system.

About Dr. Spencer, et al, I still maintain that real science, money, and politics are a bad mix.

About the grant money - I like your gentle sarcasm.

 

[zeroibis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't mean to sounds like a ******, but let's keep the opinions out and the science in. This is one of the only interesting threads in the Lounge in a while, so let's not get it closed, eh? Bottom line, this thread will not change any person's mind if they are militantly on one side, but debating the science and the future based on real and not fabricated observations could be of use and prove to be much more interesting than some of the mindless drivel that usually takes the first page. mbriant: very interesting article, although it does not come as a shock to me.

Thank you, you can only have a debate when both parties are actually willing to change there mind. If there not actually willing to change that is called an argument.

 

[randerson3024]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't mean to sounds like a ******, but let's keep the opinions out and the science in. This is one of the only interesting threads in the Lounge in a while, so let's not get it closed, eh? Bottom line, this thread will not change any person's mind if they are militantly on one side, but debating the science and the future based on real and not fabricated observations could be of use and prove to be much more interesting than some of the mindless drivel that usually takes the first page. mbriant: very interesting article, although it does not come as a shock to me.

Well said.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazarus Short /img/forum/go_quote.gif About Dr. Spencer, et al, I still maintain that real science, money, and politics are a bad mix.

when politics follows science, i'm ok with that. when science follows politics... then we have a problem. as for religion...well, science and religion should just quietly walk away from each other.

Quote:

About the grant money - I like your gentle sarcasm.

a velvet hammer, as it were.

 

[zeroibis]

I do not think it is possible for them to ever walk away from each other. Personally I know what I believe and I know that what I believe is the TRUTH therefore I pray for the day that science may advance enough to prove me right. If science ultimately can only prove what is and is not reality then because what I believe is true science will eventually prove me right.

As for the science and politics, or anything for that matter it is always important to note if it be logic and reason or pride and prejudice that leads the argument.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeroibis /img/forum/go_quote.gif I do not think it is possible for them to ever walk away from each other. Personally I know what I believe and I know that what I believe is the TRUTH therefore I pray for the day that science may advance enough to prove me right. If science ultimately can only prove what is and is not reality then because what I believe is true science will eventually prove me right.

science is open-ended.... it is constantly trying to falsify and modify itself. there is no "absolute truth." science, by definition, will change and adapt theories as the evidence demands. but it will only bow to the data, not to preconceived notions that contradict the evidence.

a truth that demands to be believed regardless of contrary evidence is no truth at all.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away." - Philip K. Dick