Now to really **** you off

"Allen Epps" wrote in message
et...
In article , Frank Reid
wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07...h_bad_science/

I don't believe left wing wacko "scientist" any more than I believe
right wing wacko "scientist". A lobbiest group is a lobbiest group

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112661,00.html


Allen

Well, I looked at that story and then followed the link to:

http://www.junkscience.com/

The first thing I was struck by is that the author of the site, Steven J.
Milloy, is no fool. That is to say, he should be given a fair and speedy
trial on whatever charge and then immediately be taken out and summarily and
publicly executed.......slowly.

Damn, Allen, I had hoped you could do better than this piece of filth.

Wolfgang

"Flyfish" wrote in message
...
Scott Seidman wrote in
. 1.4:

Actually, science does pretty well under conservative governments that
are willing to spend into deficit, if Reagan can be used as an
example, but Bush isn't doing very good things for science at all.

Scott


I would argue that hard sciences like physics did well under Reagan, less
popular sciences such as environmental sciences fared poorly.

Flyfish

Less popular? Your fellow pointy-heads in Maine are all adither over the
latest hotbutton topics in theoretical physics, are they?

Imbecile.

Wolfgang

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...
Sarge writes:

The problem is for every scientist view you find there is one that
disagrees. Scientist can't agree on anything.

whether you realize, or not, Sarge, you have hit on it. The nature of the
Sciences is debate, study, more debate....eventually, things are learned,
more
questions asked, and knowledge goes forward.

Actually, the fool missed it by a mile. In fact, scientists within any one
discipline typically agree on virtually everything but niggling details. It
is only when a particular discipline undergoes what Kuhn so felicitously
termed a "paradigm shift" that widespread disagreement on fundamental issues
occurs and these are generally resolved in what, in retrospect, is a very
short time......however long it may seem at the time. It has been
demonstrated time and again that near universal agreement on the core issues
in any field is one of the greatest impediments to scientific progress.

Eliminating the input from those
scientists is an encouragement of ignorance. Hence, the problem of the
C-student President. Ignorance is elevated to an exalted level. Why read
the
newspaper when your friends will tell you all you need to know?? As the
song
goes
(Ramones): Ignorance is Bliss!

Yeah, all of that part is right.

Wolfgang

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
I don't believe left wing wacko "scientist" any more than I believe
right wing wacko "scientist".


In any case, how would you KNOW if a scientist is a left- or
right-wing wacko?

vince

A left-wing wacko scientist gets his/her groceries from federal grants.

A right-wing wacko scientist gets his/her groceries from federal salary.

Conjecture based on experience.

John

"John Richardson" wrote in message
...

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
I don't believe left wing wacko "scientist" any more than I believe
right wing wacko "scientist".


In any case, how would you KNOW if a scientist is a left- or
right-wing wacko?

vince

A left-wing wacko scientist gets his/her groceries from federal grants.

A right-wing wacko scientist gets his/her groceries from federal salary.

Conjecture based on experience.

John

Experience, they say, is the best teacher. But then, they say a lot of
stupid stuff.

Wolfgang

On 13 Jul 2004 00:20:27 GMT, (Tom Littleton) wrote:

RDean notes:

These two articles sure don't say much beside typical left- or
right-wing shouting.

agreed, and I should have stated such. My opinion is far more based on
commentary in the professional Journals. This culling of scientists has
apparently been evident in quite a few advisory panels/boards, and a lot of
very well-thought-of scientists of no known political tendencies are very
concerned. Hence, my alarm....these two articles, as you state, shout the
obvious biases back and forth.
Tom

Yeah, but Tom, if these self-same scientists are writing for the
professional journals, who is to say if they are accurate. I have no
idea if this for the Fox story is accurate, but if it is, this kind of
thing doesn't say much for the scientists' credibility (the intro left
in for attribution only, and emp. add.):

"But contrast the Bush administration’s circumspect approach with how
the UCS according to documents I obtained when researching my book,
"Silencing Science" (Cato, 1999) advised its members to give media
interviews about global warming in a 1997 memo:

'1. Stay on message. The message is simple global warming is a serious
problem we must take action now to fight global warming.

2. Don’t confuse them with doubt. In other words, don’t talk like a
scientist, with caveats and error bars. Emphasize the word consensus.

3. Don’t talk too much. So practice your soundbites and don’t get
trapped into giving the reporter what he is looking for. Set your time
limit in advance so that you can terminate the interview before you are
in over your head without appearing to be evasive. __Your main purpose
is to advocate, not to educate.__'"

As you know, my SO deals with this sort of stuff (journals, etc.), and
frankly, I've not heard anything good or bad, one way or the other, from
the researchers and scientists we have social or professional contact
with. They are generally a mix of left, right, and in-betweens, with as
many Bush/Cheney stickers on cars as Kerry/Edwards. Obviously, nothing
concrete from that, just an observation. The only "of note" political
thing was that all the military-background folks I know were "no way, no
how" on Clark.

TC,
R

In article , vincent p.
norris wrote:

I don't believe left wing wacko "scientist" any more than I believe
right wing wacko "scientist".

Allen, why do you assume all scientiests are either left-wing wackos
or right-wing wackos?

Most scientists I've known over the past 40 years have been pretty
solid, thoughtful, moderate people.

Scientific training encourages one to be careful not to "go beyond the
data" and to be skeptical of evidence until it's corroborated.

This doesn't always carry over into one's life away from the lab, but
it tends to.

In any case, how would you KNOW if a scientist is a left- or
right-wing wacko?

vince

Vince,
I did not mean to paint all scientist with an extremist left or right
brush and if I left that impression my apologies. You are correct; the
vast majority of scientists are skilled at analysis of complex data and
modeling.
The ones I think little of are those that are of the "chicken little"
variety screaming that if we don't subscribe to their theory that we
are all doomed from item X. The natural environment is a complex and
not always fully understood machine and these scientist think that
since they have a deep understanding in one subject that that makes
them an expert in all neighboring subjects. A rule of thumb I use is
that the folks that are speaking at political rallies or as the
routinely invited "environmental"talking head on a network are likely
trying to push an agenda that is easily influenced by politics and I
trust them much less than scientist that have a solid record of
publishing in a variety of professional publications of careful
reasoned, bounded arguments.
Allen

www.bullmooserepublicans.com

In article , vincent p.
norris wrote:

I don't believe left wing wacko "scientist" any more than I believe
right wing wacko "scientist".

Allen, why do you assume all scientiests are either left-wing wackos
or right-wing wackos?

Most scientists I've known over the past 40 years have been pretty
solid, thoughtful, moderate people.

Scientific training encourages one to be careful not to "go beyond the
data" and to be skeptical of evidence until it's corroborated.

This doesn't always carry over into one's life away from the lab, but
it tends to.

In any case, how would you KNOW if a scientist is a left- or
right-wing wacko?

vince

Vince,
I did not mean to paint all scientist with an extremist left or right
brush and if I left that impression my apologies. You are correct; the
vast majority of scientists are skilled at analysis of complex data and
modeling.
The ones I think little of are those that are of the "chicken little"
variety screaming that if we don't subscribe to their theory that we
are all doomed from item X. The natural environment is a complex and
not always fully understood machine and these scientist think that
since they have a deep understanding in one subject that that makes
them an expert in all neighboring subjects. A rule of thumb I use is
that the folks that are speaking at political rallies or as the
routinely invited "environmental"talking head on a network are likely
trying to push an agenda that is easily influenced by politics and I
trust them much less than scientist that have a solid record of
publishing in a variety of professional publications of careful
reasoned, bounded arguments.
Allen

www.bullmooserepublicans.com

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Allen Epps wrote:

... Good god man they're politicians. It's not even worth
debating who's worse than whom.

Yeah, actually it is.

Though I tend to agree with Allen when I'm feeling cynical (which is
most of the time) I'll have to side with Ken on this one. Of course,
we'll never all agree on who's worse than whom...

It's not as much of a debate as it should be, there is no
"left" left in American politics, but the debate is worth
it, especially now.

Well there's not as much "right" in American politics as there once was,
either. G-Dub has co-opted as much of the Dem's tax & spend philosophy
as Clinton did the GOP's economic & fiscal policies. Look at
NCLB--could we spend more on education? Sure. Will it help? Probably
not. Why do some kids excel and some kids fail? Aside from IQ, it all
boils down to parental expectations.

As for the missing "left", perhaps you should consider changing your
voter registration to Green or even Socialist if the Democrat Party
ain't doin' it for ya.

The trouble is that much of the American populace is, in their hearts,
Libertarian on some subjects and downright Fascist on others. Since no
political party seems to be able to take a liberal stand on one
issue--say, abortion or the environment--and a conservative stand on
another--say, 2nd amendment rights or taxation & the size of gov't in
general--what you get is a nation of single-issue voters. Of course
most of them pick the wrong issue...

Me? I can't vote for Kerry (2nd amendment, taxes & big gov't). Can I
hold my nose long enough to vote for Bush? (Environment? We don't need
no stinkin' environment!, Anti-Choice, and as much as some of y'all may
not like it, he makes us look like the worst sort of backwards hicks
this side of the pond).

Tom G
--
email:remove tt

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:38:34 GMT, Tom G wrote:


Well there's not as much "right" in American politics as there once was,
either. G-Dub has co-opted as much of the Dem's tax & spend philosophy
as Clinton did the GOP's economic & fiscal policies. Look at
NCLB--could we spend more on education? Sure. Will it help? Probably
not. Why do some kids excel and some kids fail? Aside from IQ, it all
boils down to parental expectations.

As for the missing "left", perhaps you should consider changing your
voter registration to Green or even Socialist if the Democrat Party
ain't doin' it for ya.

The trouble is that much of the American populace is, in their hearts,
Libertarian on some subjects and downright Fascist on others. Since no
political party seems to be able to take a liberal stand on one
issue--say, abortion or the environment--and a conservative stand on
another--say, 2nd amendment rights or taxation & the size of gov't in
general--what you get is a nation of single-issue voters. Of course
most of them pick the wrong issue...

Me? I can't vote for Kerry (2nd amendment, taxes & big gov't). Can I
hold my nose long enough to vote for Bush? (Environment? We don't need
no stinkin' environment!, Anti-Choice, and as much as some of y'all may
not like it, he makes us look like the worst sort of backwards hicks
this side of the pond).

Tom G


I have been staying out of the political threads this year and it is a
matter of principle to avoid gun law related threads (arguing about
guns is the single most futile exercise on Usenet, imho). But
honestly, whatever Kerry's stand is on guns (and he obviously is not
anti-gun ownership) there is absolutely *nothing* he could get passed
in any *possible* configuration of congress which would have any
effect on the 2nd amendment. And since I'm entering this mess anyway
I bet if I had been a fly on the wall during the debate on the Bill
of Rights I doubt if I would have heard the word "hunting" once during
the discussion of the 2nd amendment. But I would have heard plenty on
the necessity for a free republic to avoid standing armies and the
necessity to arm its citizens in the framework of popular militias
regardless of their personal beliefs. I truly believe that the
amendment was meant to protect your right to fight in the militia.
That is the "right to bear arms" they meant at the time no matter how
its been interpreted since.


g.c.