Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 10
    Posted by DrZarkov99 4 years, 1 month ago
    I'd have been more interested in a poll pitting scientists against engineers. Not to disparage the general public, but this was played as a "numbers vs feelings" portrait, when it should have been a "theory vs reality" study.

    People who consider themselves "scientists" cover a broad spectrum of disciplines (including "social science" and "political science"), so I'd be interested in the details of the makeup of that population. Also, scientists tend to be extremely narrow in their interests, and generally accept the pronouncements of other scientists outside of their field, as they are taught that one must be an expert in a specialty in order to question it. Engineers are the scientists "redneck cousins", who have to live in the real world and produce the wonders decreed by the scientists as to be expected, from the results in their antiseptic laboratories.

    As you might guess, I'm one of the "rednecks", and being a systems engineer, somewhat disdainful of professional boundaries. Having had to bridge the communications gap between scientific disciplines more times than I can remember, you'll have to forgive me if I am somewhat less worshipful of "scientists" than most.

    Science is more vulnerable to political influence than engineering, primarily because the scientist doesn't have to produce a product someone might be held accountable for. Scientists are also more dependent on the public dole, in the form of grants and research dollars, and negative results are forgivable, while engineers have to deliver useful products, and failure is not kindly tolerated.

    I am not anti-scientist. I just think we need to give them a break, let them pursue their passion for research, and try to keep the political jackboot off of their necks. Maybe the scientific community is too sensitive. As an engineer I've taken great pleasure in telling politicians they can be the problem or the solution, and they usually listen when self interest is in play.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 4 years, 1 month ago
      Sorry, Zarkoff. I am not going to vote Thumbs Down, but I must take issue with your easy way with words. Although you backpedal with, "I am not anti-scientist" your other opinions come through much louder. "... it should have been a "theory vs reality" study. ... Engineers are the scientists "redneck cousins", who have to live in the real world and produce the wonders decreed by the scientists as to be expected, from the results in their antiseptic laboratories. ... I am somewhat less worshipful of "scientists" than most. ... the scientist doesn't have to produce a product someone might be held accountable for. ... "

      It would be equally and oppositely unfair to say that engineers are tinkerers who do not understand what they are doing. Engineers only make small changes to things that have worked for years or centuries. Engineers tend to be religious and therefore superstitious. And so on... Oh, and, yes, I am not anti-engineer...

      The fact is that engineering is largely anonymous, whereas scientists typically put their names on their works when they publish papers. It is also a fact that sociology textbooks devote more space to the scientific method than do physics textbooks. See "Is Physics a Science?" here on my blog: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2012/...

      That said, you are correct in your implication that wonderfully engineered gadgets very often have _not_ come from the application of scientific theory. Historically, science advanced after engineering. Science explained the theory behind the incremental and empirical creations of engineers. We had steam engines 150 years before we had thermodynamics. Still, in our world today, more engineered products are the result of advances in scientific theory than in the past. Electronics and computing are easy examples.

      It is important to remain objective and not create false dichotomies.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mdant 4 years, 1 month ago
        You seem to have taken these comments somewhat personally, but I do not think you have said anything to argue with what I consider the important aspects of the argument. Namely, supposedly scientific comments must be read very skeptically. The two main concerns pointed out are that scientist are very subject to political (politically correct) and funding pressures, and they are somewhat separated from the real world. Personally, I think the first concern is the greatest as we have seen years and years of politically correct "science". The public rightfully looks at claims made by private companies in a skeptical manner assuming there is some profit motive behind it, but the public is often missing the boat in understanding that scientist are under similar pressures and should also be viewed skeptically.

        All that said, I love science! I just think you need to review everything through a very skeptical mind before believing any of it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ddustin 4 years, 1 month ago
      Great post! I agree with all of it. Being an engineer & entrepreneur with parents of an engineer and scientist I jibe with all of this.

      I jibed with Atlas Shrugged in a similar way as well when it talked about the State Science Institute.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bob44_ 4 years, 1 month ago
    Thousands of years ago the earth was mostly covered in ice. It started melting, meaning that it was warming. There weren't enough people to cause warming and there was certainly no oil industry and there were no California liberal professors either. Now some scientists claim we are in a 30 year cooling cycle which I believe validates the thought that the earth constantly goes through climatic cycles. As a result, climate change is now the unwavering cry of the liberal nut cases who were exposed in the global warming fraud.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  edweaver 4 years, 1 month ago
    I wonder how much of sciences money comes from the public coffers? I suspect that those included in this survey get a substantial amount of it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  allosaur 4 years, 1 month ago
      Government and libtard think tank funding has a whale of a lot to do with "scientific opining," especially in this lib PC group think day and age.
      That and the "scientific" peer pressure that goes with it.
      The current fictitious man-made "climate change" adaptation from "global warming" is all a pile of paid-for malarkey brought to you by the collective control freaks of Big Brother and its lock-step pseudo-science- puppets on a chain.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years, 1 month ago
      The division between private and government research $ is about 5:95 at most universities and 20:80 at my university. I struggle at my own faculty position because of this, kind of like the producers in AS had to do.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by dbhalling 4 years, 1 month ago
        It is impossible to find a profession that is not touched by the government in today's world. It is also not hypocritical to take advantage of government programs that one is forced to pay for. It is only hypocritical or wrong to be a proponent of those ideas. Despite this I have always hated using those government programs, sometimes to my disadvantage.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years, 1 month ago
          We tried at first to eschew any labs that were government...but government support is so integral to the health care system we finally gave up. There is little difference between a private lab which does all Medicare/Medicaid work and a prison lab that is explicitly government funded. We pretended for a while that running the money through private hands laundered it...but we realized that was only a pretense.

          Jan
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years, 1 month ago
            That is part of my problem in working with government contractors in the defense business, although that is certainly more ethical than working directly with the government.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Riftsrunner 4 years, 1 month ago
    I wonder if this split might be in part due to the current religious vs. science climate in the country. Science tries to examine any unknown from the point of view of letting the evidence lead where it leads. Religion on the other hand, has its tenets and then goes looking for the facts that will back it up or in absence of those facts just claim "God (whichever God the religion represents) did it". And lately, I have witnessed that when the religious are exposed to information that doesn't conform with their world view, they would rather try to obfuscate and deny the facts than reevaluate that world view.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dbhalling 4 years, 1 month ago
      Unfortunately, the same can be said of many scientists. See Global Warming. In physics you have to work within the established ideas or it is hard to get funding.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 1 month ago
        +1. In today's day, I can't trust in the objectivity of most scientists. The biggest clue I have is whether or not they are government-funded. If they are, my BS-meter automatically starts going crazy.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rainman0720 4 years, 1 month ago
    Probably going to set myself up, but when I read "...Scientists were more certain that global warming is caused by man...", it made me cringe.

    What an awful blanket statement to make.

    There is a 350-400 year period often referred to as the Medieval Warming Period that proves--beyond the shadow of any doubt--that good old planet earth is quite capable of warming up on its own, with no help from mankind.

    I can't quite bring myself to make the case for public opinion over scientists' positions in scientific matters, but just because there's a difference, it doesn't automatically mean that the public is wrong and scientists are right.

    (Give me a few minutes to don my body armor, and then fire away.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Bob44_ 4 years, 1 month ago
      The problem with much of the scientific testimony is that with the UN, they perpetuated a fraud. Now many of the scientists are hard to trust. Kinda like CBS news and Dan Rather.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Snezzy 4 years, 1 month ago
      So much package-deal reporting in that article. "Our polls show the general public believe A, which is obviously false. They also believe B, which therefore must also be false."

      Am I paranoid to believe that somebody out there is trying to destroy science?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by BradSnipes1 4 years, 1 month ago
    A good Engineer is a scientist and a good Scientist is an Engineer.
    I have been a Mechanical Engineer for 43 years.
    I love thermodynamics, heat transfer, and Engineering Design. I understand the Science of Man-Caused Global Warming. I consider it to be Political Science rather than a true science. It is definitely politically motivated.

    One big difference between Climate Science and other Sciences is that Climate Scientists are all employees of the government. They depend on governments for their existence.

    I consider that Climate Science is an example of "Crony Science". These scientists have created a problem to justify their hand-out from the government.

    The only reason that I can see for the promotion of this fraud is that it will enable the governments to gain complete control of the energy sector of the world's economies. When this happens, our last vestige of freedom will be gone.

    Of course, I love science and have great respect for scientific achievement.

    In my website,Iwww.texanhomeenergy.com I will be disclosing my research into the inadequate temperature data set and how it was manipulated to obtain their goal.

    As our economy is controlled by the governments, Climate Science is also controlled and manipulated by the governments. It is "Crony Science",
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 1 month ago
    "In the most dramatic split, 88 percent of the scientists surveyed said it is safe to eat genetically modified foods, while only 37 percent of the public say it is safe and 57 percent say it is unsafe."

    " And 68 percent of scientists said it is safe to eat foods grown with pesticides, compared with only 28 percent of the general public."

    How to lie with statistics.

    Of the 88% of scientists that say GMO food is safe, how many have expertise in that area and are not financially prejudiced?

    Of the 68% of scientists that say food grown with pesticides is safe, how many have expertise in that area and are not financially prejudiced?

    Cui bono.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 1 month ago
      and what percentage of each has participated in a double-blind controlled experiment to determine the risks or damage FROM eating GMO'd foods or crops treated with pesticides?

      If 10% of the risks being claimed were valid, a LOT more of us would be dead already from exactly those causes, but it looks like we're not.

      Red Rice and river blindness as another argument AGAINST GMO foods? Morons!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 1 month ago
        I think that most of the uproar against GMOs is pointing out that real long term studies were never done and that evidence is mounting that some GMOs are not as safe as claimed by Monsanto. The fact that Monsanto appears to be buying immunity via congress critters adds another reason for suspicion that safety was exaggerated in the very limited studies that Monsanto relies upon. At least that's the way I read the evidence. Anti-GMO articles are admittedly sometimes as exaggerated in their conclusions as the safety was in Monsanto's studies. The evidence isn't there to suspect all GMOs as harmful, but long trem studies are needed. Monsanto in particular is continuing to promote products (Roundup and related seeds) and to manipulate congress to protect Monsanto from the liability of using those products. Instead Monsanto should be trying to scientifically prove them safe for long term use. Based on the latest limited studies, that proof appears to be unlikely and Monsanto's actions reprehensible.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 1 month ago
          And I love the old joke that says that after about ten generations of using acetylsalicylic acid, everyone becomes infertile!!

          Because aspirin hasn't been in use "long enough" to prove that isn't true..

          When critics start specifying what "long term" would satisfy them, I'll be happy and very surprised. Never happens, though...

          In other words, can they tell us what Kind of Proof or What Exactly would convince them that GMOs are "acceptably safe"?

          Never happens. Much better to be intentionally vague so the measurement can be changed to maintain the disapproval...

          I've asked over and over why GMO SEEDS are so bad if the SEEDS aren't eaten... but the plants GROWN from those seeds ARE the ones that are eaten! Some kind of lack of "scientific proof" if that little step gets lost in the shuffle, eh?

          Whatever... What do I know.. My engineering training must be irrelevant.... :)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 1 month ago
            Agreed, there has to be an acceptable standard established for long term testing or its a wasted exercise with a moving target. As for your question on eating the seeds or the plants grown from the seeds, the argument that I have heard is about Roundup ready plants.The presence of glyphosate in roundup ready crops has been described as a possible cause of health problems that requires futher testing.
            One critique of Monsanto's Roundup ready GMO testing:
            http://www.psrast.org/subeqau.htm
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 1 month ago
              That is a GREAT write-up!
              And without those kinds of well-designed and -controlled experiments, it's still not Proof of Danger, just non-proof of Safety.

              I'd strongly encourage Monsanto or independent researchers to DO such controlled experiments BEFORE concluding that those things are killers, dangerous, toxic, etc.

              Keep the 'hot words' out of the conclusions UNTIL there ARE 'conclusions.'

              Wow... sounds a little like MMGW and a few other seriously 'debated' topics, eh?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 1 month ago
    As I grew up, it was always a matter of science vs the great unwashed. Beliefs of the general public seemed to hinge on superstition, bad information, and religious zealotry. Over the course of the next 50 years or so, everything reversed itself and we have science often embracing downright lies, which in many cases, throws a web of suspicion on scientific breakthroughs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 4 years, 1 month ago
    This is very interesting. Love the GMO food opinion. What a smokescreen.
    Surprised about human contribution to global warming. 87% of scientists see this correlation?
    Nuclear power. Jesus christ. we need to get this moving, not for global warming, but it helps, for energy independence from the middle east, a most effective defense spending.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 1 month ago
      Agreed.

      Nuclear power pound for pound is the most dense source of energy presently viable. They have a massive research station not far from where I live working on better technology for reactors that far outstrips anything in production today as far as waste production (see the INL). I have no doubt that some day we will even harness fusion. In the meantime, there is also the very real possibility of a solar satellite that beams energy collected from orbiting, geosynchronous satellites to terrestrial receiving stations. The University of Hawaii was the last ones I knew of doing viability testing and they had successfully transmitted and received energy through 23 miles of atmosphere (though their research was all terrestrially-based).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Kittyhawk 4 years, 1 month ago
      I heard that there had never been a profitable power plant, and that's why only governments build them and not the private sector. Do you know if that's true?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 4 years, 1 month ago
        Clearly the government does not build nuclear plants. They are more often owned by a power company.

        The problem with nuclear power is that the cost of generation are about 60-70% fixed costs, from building the plant. Therefore all the cost is upfront, the opposite of a gas turbine plant.

        Below is a link to the cost of various power generation methods from different sources.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_o...

        Nuclear power would be fine, if people were not so afraid. The Navy operates ~300 nuclear power plants on submarines and aircraft carriers, and has never had a significant incident, since the first in 1954.

        The first nuclear submarine, the Nautilus SSN571, was commissioned in 1951, then designed, then built in 18 months, delivered in 1954. Today the present attack submarine, the Virginia Class, design began about 1992, the first ship was delivered in 2004. So to do the first one took 3 years, but to design and build the recent one takes 12 years. Of course there are good reasons for some of this, including complexity and capability; however, fear of failure/ lack of confidence, conservatism also contribute to our new, slow pace.
        I bring this example, because it parallels commercial nuclear power. These plants are really not that complex, but we are more and more risk adverse, breeding layer after layer of oversight and fear of making a decision, all equaling cost.

        All said, no nuclear power plants do make money. They typically operate a full load continuously, and let the variable load be carried by other power plants with more variable cost.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Kittyhawk 4 years, 1 month ago
          From Wikipedia: "To date all operating nuclear power plants were developed by state-owned or regulated utility monopolies[13] where many of the risks associated with construction costs, operating performance, fuel price, and other factors were borne by consumers rather than suppliers. Many countries have now liberalized the electricity market where these risks, and the risk of cheaper competitors emerging before capital costs are recovered, are borne by plant suppliers and operators rather than consumers, which leads to a significantly different evaluation of the economics of new nuclear power plants." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pow...

          So, current plants were built either by a government or by a company granted a monopoly which allowed it to pass costs on to the consumers. If it's changing now, it will be interesting to see if it becomes more or less profitable.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 4 years, 1 month ago
            Yes, but all present power companies operate under a monopoly. Are you arguing against a government granted monopoly, (e.g. patent, et al), or against nuclear power.
            This does not support the government ownership of nuclear power plants (not so) or their commercial viability (yes they do make $).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Kittyhawk 4 years, 1 month ago
              I wasn't arguing anything. I just wondered if nuclear power was cost-effective or not. I have no problem with nuclear power per se. I don't like government subsidization or ownership of businesses, or granting of monopolies, which all involve force and encourage inefficiency. (Patents are a separate question. Utilities aren't granted a monopoly to provide power in a certain area because they invented anything. There's probably some public safety excuse given to justify utility monopolies, but it's more likely that politicians agree to keep competitors out in exchange for contributions or bribes.)

              You said, "This does not support the government ownership of nuclear power plants..." I understand the Wikipedia reference to "state-owned... utility monopolies" to mean government-owned utilities. Does "state-owned" mean something else to you?

              And you had written previously, "All said, no nuclear power plants do make money." But now you wrote, "yes they do make $." I guess the first one had a typo? I think from the chart you linked before, it showed that the cost of nuclear power was greater than the cost of using coal or gas, but I'll take your word for it if you say it's profitable.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 4 years, 1 month ago
                Bad choice of words on my part. I just wondered if you were making a point about monopoly = state-owned.
                The wiki reference says state-owned OR regulated utility monopolies. A local example, the Milestone Plant in Waterford, CT was owned by Northeast Utilities (now Eversource), and sold to Dominion. These may include regulated monopolies, but they are not owned by CT or the USG. I haven't found an example of a state or USG owned reactor in the US (quite modest search so far). Perhaps the wiki statement refers to ones in France, Korea, China and/or Japan.
                Sorry I sounded pointy. Wasn't my intention.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 4 years, 1 month ago
    I have been through a lot of scat in my life. A few things I know for sure: Everybody thinks they have science on their side. Most are wrong. Much of what is passed of for "science" these days is just the result of massive financial contributions to the universities by special interests.

    Note the "mandatory vaccinations" statement?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Turfprint 4 years, 1 month ago
    WHO’S AFRAID OF MONSANTO?
    President Barack Obama signed a spending bill, HR 933, into law in March 2013. It is the “Monsanto Protection Act" which effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified or engineered seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future.
    It appears they were floating the legislation to determine backlash because it has a short expiration fuse. But as a harbinger of things to come it’s very scary.
    “In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Sen. Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”

    A little tidbit from one of those “uninformed” a farmer: GMO corn travels.
    The air-born cross pollination of GMO corn travels 18 rows into neighboring fields when planted beside natural seeded corn field. Then Monsanto will sue you for patent infringement if you use any of that corn for seed the following year (or years.) And if you go to court against Monsanto, you will lose.

    Another tidbit: If you are young haven’t been around long enough to notice the change, 20 or 30 years ago there were a lot more bugs on your windshield when you drove through the country. Bees are also getting scarce.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dbhalling 4 years, 1 month ago
      This legislation was wrong, but so are the courts that allowed frivolous lawsuits against Monsanto, including the continued lying that Monsanto is suing farmers who innocently end up with their GMOs.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Turfprint 4 years, 1 month ago
        I don't know about the actual number law suits, there were some . But at the local level the farmers believe they will be sued.

        From Monsanto.com
        "This is a relatively rare circumstance, with 145 lawsuits filed since 1997 in the United States. This averages about 11 per year for the past 13 years. To date, only 9 cases have gone through full trial. In every one of these instances, the jury or court decided in our favor."

        Canadian Supreme court: “In 2012-2013, two separate courts acknowledged that Monsanto has not taken any action – or even suggested taking any action – against organic growers because of cross-pollination.”
        Problem is, Monsanto owns the courts.

        Bill, HR 933 - “Monsanto Protection Act" which effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified or engineered seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future didn’t spontaneously materialize, Monsanto was behind it. What does that say about benign Monsanto motives?

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 4 years, 1 month ago
          The problem is that a bunch of people are trying to make Monsanto into a monster that it is not. The lawsuit by the environmental groups was BS, they did not have standing, they wanted to sue on over what they thought might happen.

          The farmers, who are a bunch of free loaders, have no respect for property rights. The PR campaign is outrageous - and typical socialist propaganda.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years, 1 month ago
    But the inclusion of global warming in the survey reminds us that scientific fact is often just opinion itself. Pre-Clovis settlement of the New World is the most recent overturn of accepted (and hotly defended) scientific fact, but the folks on this forum can cite examples going back a century or more.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 4 years, 1 month ago
    This is clearly a biased survey. Any broad scale survey of scientists on Global Warming is not going to show they are more likely to BELIEVE in AGW. This is even more true the more rigorous the scientific training of the scientists.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 1 month ago
    Study done by Pew Research, funded by Pew Chartitable Trusts whose primary current concerns are:

    Efforts are focused on reducing the scope and severity of three major global environmental problems:
    1) Destruction of the world's oceans, with a particular emphasis on marine fisheries.
    2) The loss of large wilderness ecosystems that contain a great part of the world's remaining biodiversity.
    3) Changes to the Earth's physical and biological systems linked to the buildup of greenhouse gases that are altering the world's climate.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pew_Cha...

    Secondary source of funding: HewlettFoundation
    "The Hewlett Foundation awards grants to a variety of liberal and progressive causes."
    "The Environment Program makes grants to support conservation in the North American West, reduce global warming and conventional pollution resulting from the use of fossil fuels, and promote environmental protection efforts in California. The Hewlett Foundation opposes coal and natural gas development."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_and...

    Obvious conflict of interest. Pew research wants continued funding so promotes the existing beliefs of the funding organizations.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Boborobdos 4 years, 1 month ago
      Time was in America that public opinion didn't have women voting and slavery was OK. Shows how public opinion can be so very wrong.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jdg 4 years, 1 month ago
        I'm not convinced that women voting was a good idea. They've brought us a whole century of nanny-statism, beginning with alcohol prohibition, that we'd never have had without women voting.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Boborobdos 4 years, 1 month ago
          Oh, and thanks for not recognizing women as full fledged Americans.

          Remember, in case you haven't already noticed... Ayn Rand was a woman. Do you want her vote not to count?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 4 years, 1 month ago
    Thanks! I went to the Pew website and downloaded the entire report. The story from Earthlink was a nice precis, but having all the facts is important - and in this case, both entertaining and enlightening.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys2 4 years, 1 month ago
    interesting article. the operative word is opinion, and everyone has one just like _______. fill in the blank.
    my opinion is some of the people who are considered as part of the public and some of the people who are in the scientific work place know something of what ever. most of the people in both areas know very little and that is because they don't care.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 4 years, 1 month ago
    Reason did a good piece some years ago about a weather scientist who got blackballed by EPA and his career destroyed for suggesting that acidity in lakes might be a result of acid soil rather than acid rain. Now Mann and his friends wield the same power and use it against anyone who tries to expose his fraud.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 1 month ago
    Scientists sometimes think of engineers as people with a bag of tricks, models, and rules of thumb, but the engineers I knowand I are with the scientists in accepting the world as it is and not falling into the political pitfalls mentioned in the articles.

    I know science isn't value neutral, but it tries hard to be. We're excited to be proven wrong. We want to how to prevent Galloping Gerties. We need more scientific fact and engineering models and fewer opions about things that should be characterized empirically.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Abaco 4 years, 1 month ago
      Yes. I am an engineer. I have few strong opinions and I welcome being proven wrong. Frankly, I am very disappointed at what passes for science in America today. The general public relies on the news media and alternative media for their science knowledge and it's wrong probably half the time. I almost wonder if it's on purpose...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 1 month ago
        Many times the people reporting non-technical, so they don't understand the science. Then someone else is responsible for the title. They'll take something happening on subatomic level and make a macroscopic sci-fi analogy: "Researchers Working on Star Trek Transporter"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by tdechaine 4 years, 1 month ago
    I would like to see this study. You can be sure that the sampling of "scientists" is not unbiased when they say such things as global warming is primarily caused by man.

    How about getting the facts into everyone's hands and see where the opinions fall? And, of course, that requires government to take politics out of the equation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo