[Rhodes22-list] An inconvenient reality.

[Ronald Lipton]

I hang out with a many scientists from all over the world, and I echo 
Chris's
comments.  Scientists, as any set of people have their
political beliefs.  But any good scientist places experiment and
evidence before political considerations.  Science is a human
endeavor, and there is bias in many interpretations. However
he only way to really succeed as a scientist (that is, produce good,
lasting, science) is to try to honestly evaluate the evidence and
follow where it leads. You know that the correct theory or
interpretation will eventually come out - the quality of the
scientific tools advances so rapidly that screw-ups or even outright
dishonesty do not last very long.

Brad, do you hang out with many current scientists?

Ron
On Dec 29, 2006, at 6:38 PM, Brad Haslett wrote:

> Chris,
>
> You don't hang out with many current scientists.  Do you?
>
> Brad
>
>
> On 12/29/06, Geankoplis <napoli68 at charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> Brad wrote:  The bulk of the 'scientists' are of the same political 
>> ilk
>> and
>> are hardly objective.
>>
>> Come on Brad, you cannot be a scientist and maintain something that 
>> is not
>> based on fact.  You can provide a theory (careful, note this word has 
>> a
>> different meaning in science than in common vernacular, the same as 
>> "gas"
>> a
>> state of matter- and "gas something you put in your car). A theory 
>> must be
>> based on facts and legitimate data and it must have a predictive
>> value.  If
>> you have a stock broker do you keep him because he is a political 
>> ally or
>> do
>> you keep him because he consistently predicts which stocks are 
>> winners and
>> losers?  Saying politics influences 99% of scientist is like saying
>> politics
>> determines how you fly your plane, and what laws of physics apply to 
>> you
>> and
>> not someone else.  Based on the predictive abilities of the 
>> politicians
>> who
>> denied the existence of global warming "nothing will happen, there 
>> will be
>> no increase in temps, no increase in weather disruptions, and no 
>> change in
>> glaciers, v.s. the mainstream scientist who accurately predicted what
>> would
>> happen.  With the accuracy of their data and technology increasing 
>> their
>> predictions and models are even better, I'll put my trust in the
>> scientist.
>> I don't give a damn what their politics are, if the vast majority of
>> scientist are in basic agreement then I'll be willing to listen and 
>> act.
>> You ask what we can do and then offer an absurd suggestion of 
>> abandoning
>> everything to the radical Muslims. Come on this is America, we can 
>> solve
>> almost anything if we really want to and work together not to just 
>> protect
>> our special privileges and not to always expect someone else to give 
>> up
>> something so we don't have to.
>>
>> Chris G
>> -----Original Message---- have to-
>> From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org 
>> [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces@
>> des22.org] On Behalf Of Brad Haslett
>> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 8:25 AM
>> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] An inconvenient reality.
>>
>> Rummy,
>>
>> This sort of thing has been happening for eons.  If a scientist from
>> mainstream academia points this out he/she will be booed off the 
>> lectern
>> because it doesn't fit into the current funding stream.  It may have
>> happened due to global warming, or not.  Global warming may be real, 
>> or
>> not.  If it is real, it may be caused by man or nature. It could be a
>> natural cycl-a state  (remember the Ice Age?). The whole issue is so
>> clouded
>> by the
>> political climate that rational discussion of the subject is 
>> difficult if
>> not impossible.  The bulk of the 'scientists' are of the same 
>> political
>> ilk
>> and are hardly objective.
>>
>> Let's assume global warming is real, and the cause is mankind.  What 
>> to
>> do?
>> Maybe we can just let the radical Muslims have their way and move the
>> whole
>> planet back to the 7th century.  There's always the issue of donkey 
>> gas to
>> deal with but maybe it is easier to handle than the 5.9 liter engine 
>> in my
>> Dodge pickup.  I dunno, and neither do these "experts".
>>
>> Perhaps I've hung around educated idiots too much.  I'd be a lot more
>> impressed if they could pour piss out of a boot without reading the
>> instructions printed on the heel.
>>
>> Brad
>>
>>
>> On 12/29/06, R22RumRunner at aol.com <R22RumRunner at aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > _http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16390346/_
>> > (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16390346/)
>> > __________________________________________________
>> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>> >
>> __________________________________________________
>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>