Comments on: Out of Balance http://scienceprogress.org/2007/11/out-of-balance/ Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:59:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: icey berg http://scienceprogress.org/2007/11/out-of-balance/comment-page-1/#comment-853 icey berg Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:56:49 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/11/out-of-balance/#comment-853 Why i have we had millions of dollers invested in the north and south poles with manned scientific stations, for decades analising in detail this very same phenomina. And we have to wait for the snow on the tip of the mountain to melt for a result. Why i have we had millions of dollers invested in the north and south poles with manned scientific stations, for decades analising in detail this very same phenomina. And we have to wait for the snow on the tip of the mountain to melt for a result.

]]> By: Steve Lomas http://scienceprogress.org/2007/11/out-of-balance/comment-page-1/#comment-849 Steve Lomas Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:24:08 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/11/out-of-balance/#comment-849 "Chris Mooney is the Washington correspondent for Seed magazine and author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World....." No bias there then- This gets to the root of the problem, real science is a method. It is not the consensus of a political body like the UN, or any individual whether they are a scientist, Republican, Democrat or Hollywood actor. All scientists agree on the basic principle of greenhouse gases as a positive forcing on global temperature. They also agree that anthropogenic emissions themselves are not enough to directly create catastrophe- this scenario is only possible through positive feedback loops as simulated by computer programs. The fact that the accuracy of these programs is impossible to validate is something that climate scientists are very open about and frustrated by. Action should be taken when the theory meets real scientific standards, not because the theory is convenient to a particular political ideology- as represented by the Center for American Progress or Chris Mooney etc etc “Chris Mooney is the Washington correspondent for Seed magazine and author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World…..”

No bias there then-

This gets to the root of the problem, real science is a method. It is not the consensus of a political body like the UN, or any individual whether they are a scientist, Republican, Democrat or Hollywood actor. All scientists agree on the basic principle of greenhouse gases as a positive forcing on global temperature. They also agree that anthropogenic emissions themselves are not enough to directly create catastrophe- this scenario is only possible through positive feedback loops as simulated by computer programs.

The fact that the accuracy of these programs is impossible to validate is something that climate scientists are very open about and frustrated by. Action should be taken when the theory meets real scientific standards, not because the theory is convenient to a particular political ideology- as represented by the Center for American Progress or Chris Mooney etc etc

]]> By: Frank Lacey http://scienceprogress.org/2007/11/out-of-balance/comment-page-1/#comment-484 Frank Lacey Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:30:19 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/11/out-of-balance/#comment-484 This begs the question: WHY are U.S. scientists, as a group, slow to defend scientific positions? Is it another "follow the money" explanation, or is there something else going on? I reject notions of conspiracies, but clearly something is different in the U.S. scientific culture that allows junk science to go unchallenged for so long--especially when it's helped along by political, capital, and/or religious interests. Clearly, now is not the time for scientists to go weak in the spine. If something is utter scientific crap (intelligent design, anyone?), why can't we say so? This begs the question: WHY are U.S. scientists, as a group, slow to defend scientific positions? Is it another “follow the money” explanation, or is there something else going on? I reject notions of conspiracies, but clearly something is different in the U.S. scientific culture that allows junk science to go unchallenged for so long–especially when it’s helped along by political, capital, and/or religious interests.

Clearly, now is not the time for scientists to go weak in the spine. If something is utter scientific crap (intelligent design, anyone?), why can’t we say so?

]]> By: RickD http://scienceprogress.org/2007/11/out-of-balance/comment-page-1/#comment-461 RickD Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:11:46 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/11/out-of-balance/#comment-461 I suspect that the increasingly obvious evidence of global warming in the form of glacier disappearance and the disappearance of snowcaps on mountains has made the news story of global warming much easier to sell. Five years ago it was much easier for global warming denialists to claim that global warming wasn't even happening. Now they've retreated to the barriers of "well, maybe it's happening now, but it's cyclical and it's not our fault". Their diminishing credibility hasn't helped their cause either. I suspect that the increasingly obvious evidence of global warming in the form of glacier disappearance and the disappearance of snowcaps on mountains has made the news story of global warming much easier to sell. Five years ago it was much easier for global warming denialists to claim that global warming wasn’t even happening. Now they’ve retreated to the barriers of “well, maybe it’s happening now, but it’s cyclical and it’s not our fault”.

Their diminishing credibility hasn’t helped their cause either.

]]>