Your first error is assuming I know less about this subject than you do. Snide cracks are not an argument.
Your second error is assuming that politics and science have nothing to do with each other, which is amazing considering that much of this science is, when it comes down to it, being funded by political entities.
What gets printed in the papers, who gets lauded, who gets ostracized, and in some cases, who gets published or not, is often political, at least in the sense of academic politics if not government politics.
Both you and Yeti work in scientific/computational fields that are, for the most part, far removed from most political considerations. Maybe you don't deal with politics much except when the funding has to be renewed. I worked at Gravity Probe B for a while, and Francis, the head of the project, spent as much time in Washington during NASA funding time as he did working on the project. But that's just money stuff. There wasn't anything political riding on the results of the science.
I have seen enough from scientists working in more controversial fields (not just climate) to know that politics weighs heavily on them. Hansen, among others, screams endlessly about being "suppressed" under the Bush administration. You think there's never any pressure in other venues in the other direction?
Current Events » in reply to Dont be an idiot
re: Dont be an idiot
The whole thread (128 posts)
- just the link in text form
- Such high-pitched emotions
- Hansen's latest paper
- re: just the link in text form
- "SourceWatch.org"? Sounds very reputable.
- It's "A Convienient Lie"
- re: It's not just the blogs
- As TB so helpfully pointed out...
- re: Why shouldn’t I believe these scientist?
- re: Why shouldn't I believe these scientist?
- re: Still, there are quite a number of "wait a minute" things out there in the science, work done by real and responsible scientists, and these need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis, not by si…
- I have never claimed that science was a democracy...
- Okay, let's skip to the politics
- It is a political issue
- re: Which facts
- A good place to start
- re: Already seen it
- re: Already seen it
- "What proof is there that CO2 is causing the earth to warm?"
- re: That's not true
- LOL I encourage everyone to look at the link- It really makes my point
- Ummm, ooookaayy... just one thing before I reply
- re: That's not true
- Break it down.
- re: Break it down.
- never mind (n/t)
- re: Break it down.
- We're talking parts per million
- "THe effects on temperature are negligible at best. "- That is nonsense, the science says otherwise...
- No we are not talking parts per million. And anyway, how would you know SteveS' objection till he has voiced it.
- CO2 levels are around 380 ppm (parts per MILLION)
- More used to seeing it as a percent. (n/t)
- CO2 levels are around 380 ppm (parts per MILLION)
- re: Break it down.
- "What proof is there that CO2 is causing the earth to warm?"
- A good place to start
- I have never claimed that science was a democracy...
- re: Still, there are quite a number of "wait a minute" things out there in the science, work done by real and responsible scientists, and these need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis, not by si…
- re: Why shouldn't I believe these scientist?
- Most of those organizations don't put the question to a vote by their members.
- re: Why shouldn’t I believe these scientist?
- That won't work.
- re: It's not just the blogs
- As TB so helpfully pointed out...
- re: It's "A Convienient Lie"
- Global warming.
- "for some reason believe that the issue of Global Warming is a political one"
- re: It's not just the blogs
