Why has Science Become Politicized?

States the obvious at times. States dogma by Democrats most of the time. A true believer in teachings of Democrats.

 

Name them!

 

So what is your expert opinion on the proper interpretation of this? What is the significance and how does it correlate with other data?

Why don't you post your sources? Is it from some crackpot site?

 

You've gotta love the cognitive dissonance.

They reject science but jump to science to prove science is wrong [without having a clue what they're talking about, of course!]

 

Bingo!

 

Let me guess, Robert thinks scientists don't know about his graph; even though it was apparently made by scientists.

Good thing Robert found that or we never would have known!!!

 

I didn't know the airs were black or that our oceans are polluted. I do think we have to modernize our Ports, that's where a good portion of the pollution is coming from. Driving across the highway and if there's a lake or an ocean, there's a good chance there's some roadkill and that crap stinks sometimes. So I'd like to do something about that, but we're no China and have never been close to that.

 

Semantic quibbling!

 

Scientific theory when applied to AGW is suspect at best. There are many examples of data being manipulated or made up out of thin air. Then there's also the dire predictions backed by science that have all come to pass. I mean if the theory is so set in stone then there should be no need to change models to meet the needs of the AGW crowd. Plus I have yet to visit the lost city of NYC or the polar bear exhibit off the coast of California. I know, denier! Stone him! Religion sucks.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

 

I asked for a source, not some image anyone could've saved off 4chan.

 

For a couple, they have not proven how life with organic molecules began in the first place; (good sounding conjecture doesn't count.) Have not explained specie to specie evolution. Can't explain the highly non-linearity of evolution, Cambrian explosion for instance. Do not well explain how extrinsic DNA modifications produce improved results when the overwhelming majority of DNA mods would by statistics be negative.

 

I have a thread called Curry Corner. I suggest you link in there to help with your education. Seldom will somebody tell me they do understand the hockey stick yet can't understand the two charts I reposted. I think I merely repeated his charts.

 

To help with the riddle, I like to suggest reading this book. I got my book in hardcover and new. It can be purchased using Amazon com for lower than retail prices.

 

Science often indicates needs for limitation on industry and corporate wants which must be considered to be an attack upon these interests which often lobby politicians and buy influence. Politicians then bow to these interests as intended and propaganda is used to solidify the gains....rinse and repeat. Basically short term financial gains lead to a dismissal of anything negative which will eventually lead to collapse which will then be blamed on science as well....human nature will destroy nature.

The Earth will be fine and recover....some species of life will not.

 

I'll offer my 2 cents: the correlation between temperature and CO2 leaves much to be desired.

 

I'm a scientist and an engineer. I work with lots of other people in the science community. None of them are threatened by people disagreeing with their beliefs. Most simply take it as a challenge or opportunity to debate the subject and show their prowess. This can be misinterpreted as trying to destroy the other side, but it's just a search for knowledge and a chance to further test their path.

The scientific community is by and far the most well to do group of people I've dealt with in my life. I'm a fallen Christian and while Christians are well meaning too, the scientists and engineers i work with will devote far more of their energy and life to the cause of bettering the world. They will suffer more anxiety and long nights of research. Constantly trying to do what's best. The scientists I know are very accepting of people's beliefs/dissagrements and have better things to do than debunk them for no reason.

Scientists and the scientific community often do try to destroy false ideas for a number of well intentioned reasons. When falsehoods are destructive or harmful they feel an obligation to call them out. This is a very human trait of protecting ones self and the well being of others. When a lie is created to dupe people or even all of humanity, anyone with knowledge to destroy the idea sould do the same thing.

Another reason would be if there's a movement that hinders scientific progress. Again, this is a well intentioned reaction. Most of science is trying to create a foundation of knowledge and understanding. For some scientists, this foundation might be just for knowledge sake. For others it's an aid to progress. There are plenty of greedy bastards who just do it for money, but of all of the scientists I've known in my life this is a very small minority.

So, feel free to question scientific beliefs. Just don't cry when they shred your arguments or call you out when you are just regurgitating popular dogma. Most of all, be willing to accept the concepts if they make more sense or have more evidence than what you thought before.

For those that pit science vs politics: who has purer intentions? If your answer is politics, have some more coolaid.

For those that pit science vs religion (a historic political tool): If there is a god and he created everything, then I seriously doubt that he would want us to stunt our search for universal knowledge.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

Evolution has nothing to do with the Origin of Life. That is a different branch of science.

Actually they have. Species evolve by adapting to different environments.

Evolution is the means to adapt to the changing environmental conditions on the planet during it's history. When environmental conditions support a greater diversity of life evolution naturally occurs to fill the available areas that will support life.

Please provide a source to support this claim.

 

Because scientists with university appointments get a significant amount of money from government grants. Research a hundred years ago was largely funded by private companies. Researchers had to seek funding and those providing the money had an expectation of results and application. That's still the case today although government provides money in those areas as well, but now you have people with PhD's in gender studies, human sexuality, political science, or whatever else who need to earn a living. So they demand money because they're just as important as physicists, mathematicians, chemists, etc to research things like why lesbians have a higher incidence of drunk driving.

The other thing is after losing to Bush in 2000, Al Gore decided he wanted to become the king of carbon brokering. He released his movie then got scientists to make an endless number of doomsday predictions. The ultimate goal was to be a limit on carbon emissions and fossil fuel consumption by government followed by bigger emitters being allowed to buy permits to emit carbon from smaller emitters or government. This was tried in 2009 when Obama tried to force the US into cap and trade. Gore would be granted exclusive license broker all carbon deals and pocket a fee for himself in doing so thus lining his own pockets. Scientists got on board in exchange for future favor. Luckily Republicans stopped it.

 

Lefies don't know the difference between science and politics.

They can't imagine it.

 

Ironic!

 

I could have sworn that the evolution of anything starts at the beginning.

While they suspect they did, no one has ever scientifically explained how amphibians evolve to primates.

Sounds nice but completely devoid of rigorous scientific explanation.

Any college level biology text ought to do.

 

It seems you have been observing science in action other than climatology. You should review the trashy ad hominem treatment given by recognized climatologists to the likes of Lindzen, Dyson, Curry, Gray, Singer (singled out for especially harsh treatment) Spencer, Christy, and Harper (former Director of Energy Research fired by VP Gore for his beliefs) -- all top climate scientists. Did you hear of California which came close to passing a law making it illegal for anyone -- including scientists -- to question global warming?

 

First of all, science represents a body of knowledge that is the result of exhaustive testing and retesting of a hypothesis. It uses reason, logic and known truths to base it's conclusions or results. It seeks to be better, it searches for more complete explanations in a continuous path toward greater understanding of everything it touches. Science challenges itself constantly. The idea that you cannot challenge scientific claims is preposterous, that is the very essence of the scientific method. However, if you do challenge it, you must use the same methods to do so honestly. There is a reason why certain scientific conclusions become a consensus opinion, it is formed out of countless tests, measurements, studies and peer reviewed challenges. If you do not trust science then you do not trust the human being to know anything about our world and reality as seen through the lens of our best minds and methods. Will science refute previously known "truths"? Of course but that possibility does not give you cover to challenge all of science. Today, the main opponents to science come from the right and certain religions. They are welcome to prove their case before experts and try to convince them with proofs. Until they do, I rely upon experts to get advice. If those experts tend to agree overwhelmingly on something, that is a good indicator that they are right. It is not a guarantee, but it is as close to one as we will see until some future truths are revealed that contradict it.

 

The left politicizes EVERYTHING, even ice cream (Ben & Jerry's).

Politics is their religion because they have no God.