jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (26 posts)

Trump Universe: Science and Scientists are Unrepentent Leftists?

  1. Credence2 profile image86
    Credence2posted 7 months ago

    Dangerous slippery slope sponsored by your strident reactionary neighbors and this current administration, have a read if you please....

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu … democracy/

    Rightwingers: be on the watch, for we are coming at you from ALL SIDES and from Every Direction.

    1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image96
      Greensleeves Hubsposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      Glad you posted that link Credence. Mr Trump's failure to accept objectively analysed evidence and proven fact, and his willingness to distort or ignore science in favour of what he wants to believe simply because it suits his purpose, is seriously frightening.

      And it's one aspect of his campaign and policies which has not received enough attention, because basically too many of the public just aren't interested in science, and do not even understand how scientific knowledge is acquired.

      And yet Mr Trump's views - particularly on issues like climate change (including his ridiculous suggestion that it's all a Chinese hoax) - are dangerous not just for America's future generations, but for the world.

      I suspect in the long run, he will not get his way when it comes to picking a fight with scientists. There will come a point when even a president cannot stand in the way of facts and pretend they are lies - I am sure there are enough sensible people in positions of authority in America and elsewhere to ensure that he doesn't win that fight. Because the consequences if he does, are just too grave.

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

        Hello Greensleeves, nice to see you back. The magazine made the standard disclaimer saying that the opinions expressed in the article were not representative of the opinion of the Scientific American.

        But I also know that this renown publication doesn't allow itself to be associated with the musings of just anyone about anything without its tacit support or approval.

        There are unsavory comparisons between Hitler's approved 'national art' and the "World according to Trump", the truth, now being what he says it is, stardard operating procedures for the most loathsome of tyrants. It is disconcerting that people allow themselves back down this course when they were witness to the same in the 20th century and can't identify a con when they see it, one that is as old as the pharaohs.

        There is a danger and not only has it begun, but is well on its way.

        1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image96
          Greensleeves Hubsposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          Credence, the magazine may have been obliged to put that disclaimer, but it certainly isn't the only publication voicing concerns anyway. I belong to several significant science groups on Facebook, and I've seen the comments of scientists elsewhere, and frankly in the rest of the world and I'm sure in America too, Donald Trump's actions and words are already causing ever greater concern. In the UK (and I think elsewhere) his antics are dominating news broadcasts too, and even though the BBC's statute requires it to be neutral, I think it's becoming hard for them to find anyone in authority - let alone any scientist - to defend Mr Trump on the details of his policies.

          I don't think his supporters in America have any idea whatsoever how seriously so many people in the rest of the world are now viewing this. As far as the comparison (specifically regarding 'truth') with 1930's Germany is concerned, at least America does still have free speech, and Mr Trump won't be able to take that away. His supporters may have convinced themselves that they can only believe the 'truth' of right-wing media outlets, and will not accept any evidence against Mr Trump's opinions, but those hardline supporters (as opposed to all the others who voted for Mr Trump) are a minority. He's alienating the majority of people in all the countries which have traditionally been your greatest allies, and he's also alienating the people who by the nature of their work are the most objective people in the world - scientists.

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

            Yes, Greensleeves, we have free speech, for now. But I suspect that the draconian Trump style will trump reasonableness and moderation. He is already working on muzzling the press and surrounding himself with syncophants like any other two bit dictator. I am waiting for the classic uniform with all the medals and decorations.

            He has, within a couple of weeks, managed to PO all 4 corners of the globe. He has run afoul of your Prime Minister, Chancellor Merkel, and now , recently the Prime Minister in Australia. He saber rattles in his threats issue to Mexico about possible US military intervention in its affairs. He has got his clod hoppers squarely in Chinese affairs and that region of the world under its sphere of influence. Relative to what is going on here, those in the European continent are in a safe place.

            Yes sir, there is trouble in River City.....

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

              "He has got his clod hoppers squarely in Chinese affairs and that region of the world under its sphere of influence. "

              Are you referring to the ships Obama kept sending to ensure free travel through international waters?  Whether China built a structure 100 miles from nowhere or not?

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

                Wilderness, you might find the linked article interesting and it hopefully it will answer your question.

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … 1ce92ddc6e

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  Ah!  Trump answered a call from the president of Taiwan, which China claims as its own just as it claims a large chunk of international waters as theirs.  And that means he got his clod hoppers squarely in Chinese affairs.

                  You'll pardon me if I recognize it for just more exaggeration and rhetoric.  Along with similar rhetoric from "white house sources".  And along with China upset that Taiwan sent people to the inauguration without having their prior approval.  I'd have to say the "saber rattling" is on China, not Trump.

                  1. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

                    Do you think that it is wise to needlessly antagonize China by diverting from the US policy of 'One China'?

    2. gmwilliams profile image82
      gmwilliamsposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      Yes, there are SOME BACKWARD & RETROGRESSIVE elements.   These people belong to the 18th century, not the postmodern 21st century.   These are THE MORE EXTREME Conservatives.  They believe that women should be barefoot & pregnant, non-Caucasians should always be subordinate & acquiescent, LGBT people should return to the closet, non-traditionalist spiritualists should be ostracized because they aren't religious/Christians, & that Caucasians CREATED civilizations, hmmmmm..........

      These are the people who believe in personhood(bleh).  They espouse the Bible & creationism as truth.  They still believe that the world is 6,000 years ago.  Yes, there are .......STILL DINOSAURS.........
      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/7865365.jpg

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

        The problem is that these once 'extreme conservatives' are now front and center of the conservative movement. That is where the danger lies.

        My mission is in life must be to destroy and otherwise discredit the political Right in anyway I can.

  2. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 7 months ago

    A whistleblower says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rushed a landmark study claiming the planet was warming much faster than expected in order to influence international climate negotiations.

    Dr. John Bates, the former principal scientist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., told the Daily Mail NOAA’s 2015 study was meant “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”
    Bates said NOAA scientists made a “blatant attempt to intensify the impact” of global warming to eliminate the “pause” in temperature rise since 1998. The Daily Mail claims Bates showed it “irrefutable” evidence NOAA’s study relied on “unverified” data.

    Bates’ objections to the paper were ignored by his superiors, who let scientists make “decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation” in advance of a major United Nations climate summit in Paris, France.


    http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/05/noaa- … z4XpJrZr8s

    Lefteist don't like “irrefutable” evidence"?
    http://www.infowars.com/noaa-scientists … eem-worse/

    1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image96
      Greensleeves Hubsposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      I wasn't going to comment further on this subject, but I have to respond to colorfulone's post. It's one thing to argue against the politics of Democrats, Liberals, left wingers, whatever you want to call them, but when you start calling into question the integrity of scientists (as a generalisation the most well informed, objective and politically neutral group of people on this planet) you really need to employ evidence which is as unbiased and factual as that which is employed by scientists.

      To merely seize upon a report in a conservative website like The Daily Caller, highlighting a conservative-leaning Daily Mail report by a known climate change sceptic David Rose, is not good enough. To further quote a report from Infowars which is the website of Alex Jones - just about the most ridiculously silly and nasty conspiracy theorist in the whole of America (and that's really saying something!) - suggests an inability to understand the difference between real news and fake news. It also suggests a failure to understand how scientific research is conducted, if you are more willing to believe the garbage that comes out of Alex Jones' mouth, than the methodology of climate scientists.

      The original Daily Mail report is full of inaccuracies, and the implications of what may have been data management failings by NOAA were grossly exaggerated, and not in any way a sinister attempt to present spurious information. If the NOAA report fell short - then it was short of the strict validation procedures which scientific research requires. It was NOT short on accuracy. The so-called 'manipulation' of data was just a change in recording methodology to make the data more accurate - the evidence of global warming in the time period specified has been independently verified by other sources besides NOAA. The evidence from other sources indeed suggests that overall global warming has been more rapid - not less! The data from NOAA was not rushed through to influence climate change negotiations - they were already behind in presenting the data, because they had been waiting for additional data from recording stations to come through. And the data did not significantly impact on the Paris agreement - a draft agreement was already in place.

      The quotes below refute the nonsense expressed in colorfulones' sources. Reading them is harder going than reading The Daily Caller or Infowars - but that's because they rely on factual analysis, and not the simplistic, sensationalist fake news of the kind that Alex Jones goes in for.

      https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-m … ature-rise

      https://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2017/ … ated-data/

      http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/ … on-sunday/

  3. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 7 months ago

    Who , in their right minds ,  can blame those who don't follow the religion of the  "Global Warming "fanaticism when there is so much  politically motivated -  science going on in the world ,   When the left begins to look at the extremely complicated and intricate,  interrelating worlds   environment like it is something other than a  petting zoo  for pot heads - so will the rest of us !

    1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image96
      Greensleeves Hubsposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      Oh dear, if you read my response to colorfulone my friend, then you'd know that I have to respond to this too! Left /right political battles are one thing, but attacks on the integrity of scientists are quite another. The climate change denial conspiracy theory is really quite ridiculous, based on no significant evidence whatsoever. It defies logic, and it is insulting to scientists, the vast majority of whom think and speak independently, based on objective empirical research - not on government edicts. Indeed, it is governments responding to the scientific evidence, rather than scientists obeying government decrees, which have have led to the current global warming concerns.

      Why on Earth does anyone seriously believe that all major governments, and virtually all experts in the field, claim that humans are having a big effect on climate change, if the evidence is not considerable? If global warming was all a hoax, why enter into it? Dealing with a non-existent threat by disrupting energy supplies and industrial usage, only does harm to the economies of the world. No government would want to take stringent measures shaking up the energy industries if it didn't think it was necessary. And no scientist with integrity would falsify data in that way. It's not just in America - it's climate scientists in all countries - academic university based, independent, working for industries of all kinds, as well as government sponsored. Even oil company reports have considered that anthropogenic climate change is happening!

      But it's only conservatives in America - not in most other developed industrial nations - who as a significant group see this as some vast conspiracy against industry.

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

        There is a disturbing/know-attitude about conservatives here in the states. They manufacture their own lies to shroud the truth. In America, conservatism is about anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism is synonymous  with stupidity, from the attitude of our current Commander and Chief to the bonehead on the street who is dumb enough to be made to believe that his or her economic problems are caused by their next door neighbor. They see the entire University system as culprits. Whenever people are allowed to think independently, that is a threat to the Right.

        Greensleeves, I am afraid that we have entered into a new 'dark age' with the lunatics taking over the asylum.

  4. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 7 months ago

    The problem, as I see it, is that scientists and their work are supported by grants, grants that come from either government or highly politically biased universities.  Scientists are very well aware that if their work contradicts popular political views their financial support (work and living) are going to disappear.

    This is not a new problem - scientists have faced it for as long as science has existed.  Darwin refused to publish for years for fear of his life, and so did Copernicus.  Galileo was imprisoned for the last 10 years or so of his own life for daring to make proposals that didn't agree with "official" positions.  Perhaps the biggest difference is that scientists used to be willing, to some degree, to buck the system as they could continue their work without massive government subsidies.  Galileo, for instance, made his own telescope and didn't depend on a multi-million dollar installation owned by government. 

    But few scientists today will do that.  Unwilling to be discredited, unwilling to support themselves with outside income, unable to provide the tools necessary for their work, they follow the political requirements to conclude what is desired by those incapable of understand the work being done.  The inquisition is alive and well in scientific endeavors.

    1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image96
      Greensleeves Hubsposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      I just don't see that as being the case at all Dan. Much research - but by no means all - may be funded by government, and certain important areas of research may of course attract more funding. But the results of that research are NOT determined by government. No credible scientist will falsify results just to suit a government, and if the government chooses to twist the findings for its own ends, then most eminent scientists will speak out and say what they genuinely think. Otherwise why is it that biologists are almost 100% evolutionists -  not creationists -  even if that goes against the wishes of an evangelically influenced administration or a religious president, as may often have been the case? And why is it that some research conclusions (for example on genetically modified food or vaccine safety often attracts the ire of conspiratorially-minded Democrats, whereas global warming (and evolution) tends to attract the scepticism of conservatives? Science is neutral. It just endeavours to uncover the truth. Nothing else.

      To compare the current situation with the society in which Copernicus and Galileo lived is not realistic. Persecution was a real threat then. As for Darwin, I haven't heard that he worried about threats to his life, but if he did, those threats certainly didn't come from the Government. My understanding is that he was a genuinely quiet-living family man who knew full well how much upset his theory would cause (even his own wife was strongly Christian, and presumably Creationist) and that was the main basis of his hesitation in publshing.

      Maybe I can't speak with absolute certainty about America, not living there - although the great majority of scientists have the same ethics about research worldwide. In the rest of the world, and certainly in the UK, there is no 'official government position' on scientific findings other than that which is derived from the scientific research. It's that way round. The British government gets its position on climate change as a result of scientific advice - it just doesn't tell scientists what advice to give! I don't think I have ever heard scientists in the UK complain that they have been forced to publish erroneous data - even scientists who have no need of funding because they work in institutions which are not publicly funded or because they have retired from active work.

      It just doesn't happen. The idea that virtually all climate scientists worldwide are publishing biased data is just a conspiratorial myth.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        "I don't think I have ever heard scientists in the UK complain that they have been forced to publish erroneous data"

        Nothing so blatant or obvious.  Just don't publish (or use) date that doesn't produce what is needed.  Just "tweak" it a little bit, round off the proper way, fudge the stats just a little.  And at the end of it all, presto!  The desired conclusion is reached.

        While the perception may be that America is composed of people not believing in evolution, it is not so.  A handful of nuts, loud ones, is all that's left.  Yes, science is neutral...but the conclusions drawn even when data is complete and true, most certainly is not.  And when you livelihood depends on getting that conclusion right , well, it influences a great many conclusions.

        For instance, what do you think would be the result of a climatologist, operating from a large research vessel provided by the government, who began publishing data that proved the whole thing was a hoax?  How long would he remain on that boat before being removed?

        No, I'll stand by my statement; science that exists in a politically biased field is dependent on government to too large a degree and it very definitely affects the results of the research.  Some doesn't - fusion research, maybe, but some does.  Studies showing solar cells are an effective, reasonable replacement for generating stations for instance.

        1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image96
          Greensleeves Hubsposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          Well we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, as I'm obviously not going to convince you that most reputable scientists just will not allow their research to be manipulated like that.

          As for the question you pose, I can answer - absolutely if he was in this country and he genuinely proved it to be a hoax, that would be accepted by all members of the scientific community who were not in on this hypothetical hoax. And his findings would be published in reputable science journals which are not government-funded. But no such proof has been forthcoming. Usually what's happened is that some media outlet with an agenda of its own, cherry-picks information and distorts it. That's what happened in the case of the so-called 'manipulated climate-change evidence' referred to in a previous comment. Such 'proof' is usually easily debunked - sometimes even by the unwitting but sincere scientist who was responsible for the 'proof', but who has been misquoted or taken out of context.

          But I am genuinely interested in why this anti-climate change belief exists? Why isn't the evidence accepted by so many in America? All things being equal, it's surely in the interests of the economy and  government of a country to just continue traditional high-level industrial production without the costly expense of investing in cleaner fuel research, and the upheavals which may result, for example from abandoning fossil fuels. What do you think all governments - not just America - but rich, poor, eastern and western - have to gain by creating a hoax like this?

          At least it seems we can largely agree about evolution smile

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            I'm guessing, but I see it as rejected by many because from the very first it was presented as human caused.  Long before there was any evidence at all to support that, it is how it was presented.  Plus, of course, there have been a few instances of fraud "proving" the whole global warming thing and that never helps.  Expected, when there are so many working and publishing on it, but it doesn't help. 

            What's to gain?  My electric bill has increased considerably because of "green" power - there are a bunch of windmills near me that sell power (my utility is required by law to purchase it) at much higher prices than my electric company needs to produce the same amount.  A company got millions of $$ plus millions more in concessions for power bills to build a solar cell plant...got the money, started construction and disappeared.  I'm now footing the bill, both in taxes and more increase in electric bills.  So alternative energy companies have a great deal to gain from it (and so do the politicians taking their brib...uh...contributions.

            1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image96
              Greensleeves Hubsposted 7 months ago in reply to this

              Thanks for that. As you'd expect, I disagree, particularly as any price increases as a result of 'green energy' are only likely to encourage people to vote against the government of the day - not for it - and nobody, including politicians, likes to lose their jobs. And countries across the world - those who have the capability to invest in new energy forms, and those who do not, seem to accept what the scientists say. Nevertheless thanks again; it is interesting to hear the perspective of someone who doubts the validity of climate change evidence.

 
working