December 03, 2005
Can science survive George Bush?
From The London Times:
SCIENTISTS ARE, by and large, left-wing creatures. They opposed the Bomb. They generally oppose the destruction of habitats, which aligns them with the green movement. They have, broadly, chosen not to look at whether we are born geniuses or dunces, hippies or murderers; the spectre of genetic determinism conflicts with the cherished liberal notion that we, with the help of parents and society, shape our talents, opportunities and destinies. They believe that scientific research should be conducted for the sake of truth and the benefit of society, rather than to line the pockets of shareholders; this makes them enemies of big business. They tend to believe in evolution, which puts them at odds with the pious. They aspire above all else to objectivity, impartiality and accuracy, and they respect the power of science to overturn old orthodoxies.
Now consider this: public policy on such topics as climate change and stem-cell research requires a scientific input. In America, public policy is moulded by a conservative, industry-friendly, Christian-sympathising Republican Government. The result, Chris Mooney documents in The Republican War on Science, has been an almighty intellectual clash between scientists and politicians. Despite the sometimes crudely partisan line, he weaves a pretty convincing tapestry.
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 06:56 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c562c53ef00d83522e8aa53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Can science survive George Bush?:
Comments
I'm a scientist and I'm a strong republican. I'm not concerned with lining my pockets with gold and I'm doing all of my research to help mankind. I'm doing what I can to keep the benefits of my studies as inexpensive for society as possible, which is a real challenge that includes a lot of self sacrifice. I find this article to be both inaccurate and offensive as most of my colleagues are also republicans who feel the same way I do.
Its my experience that Liberal Scientists, like Al Gore, ignore equations and fact and cause false beliefs to line their pockets with gold. So far the only people to rip off our ideas to patent them have been liberals who worked with me. I take a lot more concern to make everyone work under contracts to prevent that now.
Its pretty common for Democrats to blame republicans for what they do. You're full of blogs and articles but public record and physics is undeniable.
Lets take 2 examples, Global warming and evolution.
Greenhouse gasses are gasses and block the same amount of light on both sides, thus carbon can only block more light from entering a system than it can trap light in a system.
It's simple. Say a green house gas has a 50% reflection rate. 100 pts of light entering is reduced to 50 pts at the surface. lets say the surface is a mirror and reflects 100%. only 25 additional points would be trapped. total 75 pts.
With no greenhouse gasses, 100pts from the start reach the surface, and reflect 100% of it back into space.
Oh no! in this condition, the gas has an effect in heating.
Here's where science comes in. Earth is not a big mirror! It absorbs light, and that generates all of the life and activity here. lets look at the 2 cases considering that Earths surface only reflects a small fraction of the light that hits it. In reality its something like 2% but lets make it 25% for easy manipulation of the numbers, all we need to find is trends.
only 25% being reflected back into space...
the gas with 50% reflection would total 56.25 pts trapped after one pass.
In the gas with 0% reflection there would be 75 pts of heat trapped in one pass.
Only what is reflected into space can be trapped here, so when a gas blocks light from entering the system it decreases the total amount that can become trapped.
Light bounces forever until its such small amounts that its negligible. If you're a person of even moderate intelligence then you could put these into formulas and carry them to a limit. When done correctly the more reflective gasses never end with more points of heat/light than the less reflective gasses.
"greenhouse gasses" there with math, can be seen to actually lower Earths temperature. Thus the liberal appointed term is inaccurate. Of course this is very simplified. But do the math yourself, the more you increase reflectivity the less total light is in the system. Period. It doesn't matter what the actual coefficients are, that is the trend and its laid in stone.
Al gore is lying and profiteering off of people's stupidity.
However, I do support clean emissions and such because it has other benefits for Earth. However, keeping the planet cool is not one of them. If ever there is a plan to actually remove carbon from the air then I hope anyone will vote it down.
Sun spot cycles completely explain the variance in Earths temperature throughout recorded history. Google it.
One last note, Evolution is not more scientific than Creation. It may become that way but as a professor of mine pointed out, Scientific theories need to have falsifiability. It means, if it cant be tested then its not science. People say God isn't scientific because they cant see him. Evolution cannot be observed either, even with a time machine. More importantly, neither theory include equations or give us something testable or concrete to work with. As far as I'm concerned, they both take faith to believe.
Actually, scientific evidence about mutations says that A positively mutated male and female not being mules, living near eachother, breeding, and having kids that arent mules.. is less likely than a monkey randomly typing Shakespeare. Evolution completely ignores statistics. (that doesn't mean creation is true either it just could mean that both ideas are way off)
Not one of the events needed for evolution to work has even been observed once. Im supposed to believe It happened billions of times in perfectly sustained ecosystems?
Im supposed to believe that dogs are perfect counterparts to humans on accident? or that somehow life evolved in thermal vents, methane pools, and on the Earths surface at the same time? Or that irreversibly complex organs like intestine evolved in leaps in one generation? or how about different races having more within group variance than between groups? If evolution is true wouldn't one race be the best adapted?
Evolutionists have more faith than I do, and it goes against observable facts. I think, as long as both theories aren't hurting anyone and neither has superior scientific support, we should NOT make it an issue about someones intelligence until there is undeniable proof of one or the other in a mutually exclusive way. Much of the two ideas could actually coexist.
But Im the one who is supposedly unscientific and profiteering! My whole life is to the contrary and people like you just write articles bashing people like me. You quote nothing, you cite nothing, you don't give even one example of what your talking about. Your material is all propaganda. And Im going to go back to work tomorrow to continue trying to make cyborg limbs a reality for all of those who need it. Just what have you contributed to science to put don a contribution like mine and call me a greedy liar? you make me sick.
Posted by: Jon | Aug 20, 2008 2:36:55 AM
I'm relatively libertarian. If you're interested. @ Jon: Is your comment meant to be ironic? Because if it is, it is genius. Or are you really a scientist who writes like a seventh-grader? Either way, you made me laugh.
Obviously, you are private sector. Otherwise you'd be cringing along with the rest of us, Dem, Repub, Green, etc. at the near-impossibility of getting funded these days.
By the way, your "model" is astoundingly oversimplified and reflects a complete lack of knowledge of high school chemistry or physics.
Just sayin'...
Posted by: neuronerd | Dec 28, 2008 4:01:03 PM
Liberals throw insults around but never offer solutions, all you people do is bitch about other people's point's of view. You don't even offer counter arguments, you just insult. In order to laugh at your jokes one must assume you are correct. It is a propaganda technique, you have made no points and answered no questions.
Posted by: There you go again | Jan 24, 2009 5:58:09 PM
If you aren't going to make points about the arguments against you then shut up.
Posted by: guy | Jan 25, 2009 11:03:26 PM
It is going to be a challenge to counter the damage of the Bush administration. Just getting the trash out will be a chore (the Bob Jones grads in science positions), and getting the qualified career people back after the cultural cleansing. Global weather change seems to be top of the list for Obama, and some deep positions held by ideologues will be hard to extract.
Evolutionary science and biology have suffered under the religious ideology of the Bush Presidency, and the US has lost respect and prestige internationally.
I'm afraid post Bush is going to be a janitorial job for a while.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Jan 26, 2009 1:46:09 AM
Do they give anybody a degree these days? Is Liberty University graduating 'scientists' now?
And who are yhese 'libruls' again? I swear by Chomsky I ain't one...
Posted by: Pepito | Jan 26, 2009 8:20:01 AM
Pepito-
I would take the comments above with a smile, and note the sad state of the human intellect.
And have a bit of compassion for our lost and delusional fellow humans.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Jan 26, 2009 10:49:48 AM
Post a comment