The Real War on Science - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Mild necroposting has been permitted because it has always been mild but since it is growing into a bane it will no longer be tolerated.

Moderators are therefore advised to initially move necroposts into stand-alone threads and for repeat offenders to hand out official warnings if said posters continue the practice.
All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

User avatar
By Rapperson
#14798692
Pants-of-dog wrote:Nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, solar.


Nuclear: not available, insufficient reserves of Uranium.

Wind: Only recently competitive in price.

Hydroelectric: Marginal undeveloped resources left.

Solar: Not competitive in price.
User avatar
By Rapperson
#14798696
AJS wrote:I don't pretend to know that the climate change hypothesis is wrong. I am sceptical that anyone can have much confidence in measuring such a vast and complex system.


Really. If your sentiment is well founded it would have to mean the entire climate science is a fraud isn't it?

With every respect and all that, but this is a bit like saying, oh my, how can such a big boat float?
#14798825
Rapperson wrote:Nuclear: not available, insufficient reserves of Uranium.

Wind: Only recently competitive in price.

Hydroelectric: Marginal undeveloped resources left.

Solar: Not competitive in price.


Fossil fuels are also not competitive in price without subsidies, and the reserves are either hard to access or in countries where we have to bomb others.

But I am assuming that you think these are criticisms that are applicable to these different methods of harvesting energy. It is hard to tell as you did not use complete sentences.
User avatar
By AJS
#14798828
Rapperson wrote:Really. If your sentiment is well founded it would have to mean the entire climate science is a fraud isn't it?

With every respect and all that, but this is a bit like saying, oh my, how can such a big boat float?


No. It’s saying that the presentation of climate science has been fraudulently manipulated to an extraordinary degree.

More like pointing out that the big boat actually doesn't float.

And how come you've got a cooler picture than me? Can you choose them?
#14798832
AJS wrote:No. It’s saying that the presentation of climate science has been fraudulently manipulated to an extraordinary degree.


Please present evidence to support this claim. Thank you.
#14798837
AJS wrote:Examples of actual manipulation

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/02/06/ ... l-warming/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati ... ontroversy


Please quote the text from those links that support your claim.

I already know that the second link does not, but I would like to see you try. :excited:

Edit: from the second link:

    Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.[17] However, the reports urged the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future, and to regain public confidence following this media storm, with "more efforts than ever to make available all their supporting data - right down to the computer codes they use - to allow their findings to be properly verified". Climate scientists and organisations pledged to improve scientific research and collaboration with other researchers by improving data management and opening up access to data, and to honour any freedom of information requests that relate to climate science.[16]
User avatar
By Drlee
#14798846
Fossil fuels are also not competitive in price without subsidies, and the reserves are either hard to access or in countries where we have to bomb others.


This should never be in dispute. Some examples that the ignorant right wing deniers do not even consider:

An extremely expensive road system is required in the absence of public transportation such as rail. This cost is directly subsidizing the cost of fossil fuel from the public coffers.

Urban sprawl is enabled by private cars and truck transport. This exacerbates our reliance on fossil fuel and subsidizes the industry as we build, at public expense, the infrastructure to support this.

I am not surprised that there are those who wish to deny climate science. They are the ones who have a direct stake in it. And they have money to spend to convince uneducated and intellectually lazy people that they are correct when they question the science.
#14798868
AJS wrote:There's no one killer quote that proves it all, sorry. If you're happy to believe it all then go ahead.


But there is a quote that directly contradicts your claim. Please see my previous post to read it. Thank you.
User avatar
By AJS
#14798892
No, there are pronouncements from committees.
It’s very difficult to prove a negative so first provide any convincing evidence for man made climate change.

Of course there is none.
#14798906
@AJS

Those committees were specifically set up to investigate the exact claim you made. They found no evidence for your claim.

Secondly, you are making a positive claim (i.e. that there was deliberate manipulation of data), so your point about negative claims is not relevant. By the way, it is also not true. Negative claims are just as easy to support as positive claims.
User avatar
By Rapperson
#14798947
AJS wrote:No. It’s saying that the presentation of climate science has been fraudulently manipulated to an extraordinary degree.

More like pointing out that the big boat actually doesn't float.

And how come you've got a cooler picture than me? Can you choose them?


I'd like to say I'm blessed, but yes, I did notice you have an extraordinarily uncool picture, and yes you can choose them.

What puts you in a position to judge if the boat doesn't float? A major part of science is determining if the science work is actually well founded. You'd have to be well versed in the theory to make that judgment, which I'm guessing you're not - and if the science doesn't hold up then a large swathe, certainly the top tier of the profession knows this, which would equate to wholesale fraud.
User avatar
By Rapperson
#14798949
Drlee wrote:This should never be in dispute. Some examples that the ignorant right wing deniers do not even consider:

An extremely expensive road system is required in the absence of public transportation such as rail. This cost is directly subsidizing the cost of fossil fuel from the public coffers.

Urban sprawl is enabled by private cars and truck transport. This exacerbates our reliance on fossil fuel and subsidizes the industry as we build, at public expense, the infrastructure to support this.


Rubbish.

Let's say Mr. McGuffin drives an electric car, charged through a socket supplied by a hydroelectric dam. Are we then subsidizing hydropower?

What about the cost of rail track? What is that subsidizing?
#14799009
The OP doesn't make bad points to start out with.

But it increasingly goes off the rails as time goes on. For instance, it asks where the casualties are in a war against science.

Not the worst thing to be asking, but defunding, ignoring, and using politics to erase information isn't really going to leave a bodycount.

It then goes on to accuse leftists of hurting science. Again, where are the casualties then?

Finally, it goes on to define leftists in a laughable way:

The OP wrote:Leftists have much more confidence in experts and the state. Engels argued for “scientific socialism,” a redesign of society supposedly based on the scientific method. Communist intellectuals planned to mold the New Soviet Man


Wait, the same people the article (rightly) lampoons for being against GMOs when there is no credible scientific information against them are communists?

And "scientific socialism," isn't at all what this author imagines it to be. It's a socialism based upon the material world and how it moves. This was opposed to precious socialists that based themselves on abstract ideas. This itself goes back to the attempt to find unifying theories throughout the 19th century that are a lot less interesting than the idea of a laboratory full of cackling leftists plotting to use science against you..
User avatar
By Drlee
#14799010
Let's say Mr. McGuffin drives an electric car, charged through a socket supplied by a hydroelectric dam. Are we then subsidizing hydropower?


That depends. If the dam was built by taxpayer money then yes. The cost of the dam and transmission infrastructure is a hidden cost of the electric car. It would also need roads. In this example there is no difference between gas, electric or wind powered cars.
User avatar
By Perkwunos
#14799017
The notion of a war on science isn't an either/or proposition. There are retarded left-wingers who get in the way of science and there are retarded right-wingers who get in the way of science.

For example, although I doubt that right-wing Christian creationists have much impact on funding for things like bioinformatics research, and can even see ways leftists might get in the way of that if it had anything to do with behavioral genetics, the right-wing creationists do a lot to disseminate falsehoods about the subject of evolution.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14799018
oxymoron wrote:enemy of science is the friend of humanity.
This is a stupid statement. The only reason you can post on this forum is because of science.

I am still stunned by Trump's personal expenses,[…]

Looks like Sean Hannity may be the next domino to[…]

Here you go. . One example of many. Of course, i[…]