Hello There, Guest!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Obama Appoints VanAndel Scientist and Man of Faith
#31
MichMan Wrote:Here is an example of how science has been politicized by the left:


1. You think "the left" is characterized by GreenPeace? Heck, even one of their founders left them a few years ago as they'd become too extreme

2. It appeared to me he was talking about arctic sea ice, not land ice. Poor choice of wording perhaps, but if so he's not wrong. Plenty of serious science is pointing to the artic being free of sea ice by 2030. To try to minimise that by talking just about Greenland is also politicizing the science

Quote:“We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said.

I'd say that's true, assuming no technological or systemic changes. Such an assumption would be willfully ignoring history however!
 Reply
#32
ibofightback Wrote:
MichMan Wrote:Here is an example of how science has been politicized by the left:


It appeared to me he was talking about arctic sea ice, not land ice. Poor choice of wording perhaps, but if so he's not wrong. Plenty of serious science is pointing to the artic being free of sea ice by 2030. To try to minimise that by talking just about Greenland is also politicizing the science

Quote:“We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said.

I'd say that's true, assuming no technological or systemic changes. Such an assumption would be willfully ignoring history however!



[Image: 06-07-ice-area1.jpg?w=660&h=511]


Quote:The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model

Why is it that the people who start with that mindset are the ones who see the Arctic Ice shrinking?
 Reply
#33
MichMan Wrote:<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/06-07-ice-area1.jpg?w=660&h=511">http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/ ... =660&h=511</a><!-- m -->


wow - is that one of the most dishonest uses of graphs and scientific data I've ever seen!

Try this one instead, from the same site -

[Image: 30-yr-ice-area2.jpg?w=487&h=358]

According to the source, that's an average loss 58983 Km^2/year of arctic sea ice.

But hey, why not just pick a couple of years to make it not look so bad?

Or if you were interested in honesty, you'd look at the longer time frame and minimums -

[Image: 2008_minimum-arctic-ice-extent.png]

Quote:
Quote:The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model

Why is it that the people who start with that mindset are the ones who see the Arctic Ice shrinking?

I don't have that mindset, and I see the Arctic ice shrinking (1979 to 2008) -

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5bCeWUu-eU[/youtube]

But then, that would be a mindset of researching the data and coming to conclusions, rather than coming to a conclusion and then cherrypicking the data.
 Reply
#34
This last comment was directed mainly to your assertion a few pages back that science had been hijacked by the religious right.

Greenpeace has a budget in the hundreds of millions of dollars and is an official NGO as recognized by the UN. Their leader claims that they use bad science in order to "emotionalize issues."

I don't know of any religious scientific organization with that kind of budget, that kind of international recognition with such a dishonest goal.
 Reply
#35
MichMan Wrote:This last comment was directed mainly to your assertion a few pages back that science had been hijacked by the religious right.


That's not what I said at all.

MichMan Wrote:Greenpeace has a budget in the hundreds of millions of dollars and is an official NGO as recognized by the UN. Their leader claims that they use bad science in order to "emotionalize issues."


MichMan Wrote:I don't know of any religious scientific organization with that kind of budget, that kind of international recognition with such a dishonest goal.


That's not a goal, it's a marketing strategy, and an extremely common one. Watch almost any advertisement. Heck, go to an Amway meeting.'

And you won't find "religious scientific organizations" with that kind of budget because they're pretty much non-existent outside of the US. Greenpeace is also not a "scientific organizatio", so you're just creating red herrings. Within the US groups like the Discovery Institute have multimillion dollar budgets. Or try the Catholic Church. Probably has a budget in the billions, not millions, and it's certainly anti-science.

Finally, my original point was about religious organizations hijacking science policy within governments. I don't think Greenpeace has hijacked environment policy within any government.
 Reply
#36
oh, and nice dodge to completely ignore your dishonest graph.

That graph is far more dishonest than a greenpeace guying saying "arctic ice" instead of "arctic sea ice"
 Reply
#37
YOu have never substantiated your statement that the religious right has hijacked science.

I have given many examples of how leftists at the highest levels have hijacked science to advance their agenda.

Please show list the religious organizations of the same size and scope as Greenpeace that have hijacked science. Please show some examples of religious scientists who have reached the level of White House Science Czar who have hijacked science to the extent that the current liberal one has.
 Reply
#38
MichMan Wrote:YOu have never substantiated your statement that the religious right has hijacked science.


What? You never heard of stem cells? Terri Schiavo?

Quote:I have given many examples of how leftists at the highest levels have hijacked science to advance their agenda.

No you haven't.

Quote:Please show list the religious organizations of the same size and scope as Greenpeace that have hijacked science.

A list? A list???

I just gave you some examples, you just ignored them and claimed I haven't given any.

Quote:Please show some examples of religious scientists who have reached the level of White House Science Czar who have hijacked science to the extent that the current liberal one has.

We already discussed this. You continue to ignore reality.

End of discussion, at least from this side.

I guess it will start up again when you find another dishonest use of a graph or some such to post.
 Reply
#39
The Catholic Church is opposed to stem cell research. It is also opposed to the death penalty. Your claim that they are anti-science is akin to calling them pro-crime because of their moral objection to the capital punishment.

First of all, it is laughable to believe that any organization that runs as many hospitals and medical centers around the world as the Catholic Church does, could be called "anti-science."

Secondly, It seems to me that argualbly the largest private provider of medical assistance deserves at least some voice on both issues.

(Also, you have not named one scientist at the level of the Science Czar who is as extreme as the one currently in the office)
 Reply
#40
MichMan Wrote:(Also, you have not named one scientist at the level of the Science Czar who is as extreme as the one currently in the office)


By "extreme as they one currently in the office", this means you want me to go through the published works of every "science czar" there ever was, and see if any of their co-authors ever discussed any issue and, doing what any good academic would do, presented a number of perspectives, including some that might be controversial.

That, hopefully, would probably cover all of them.

This was well covered before, and YOUR extremist views on the topic were well exposed for all to see. The fact you still persist in this silly myth says more about you than anyone else.
 Reply

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)