T1B

OCmike wrote: that filibustering bullshit.

Yeah, sorry that real scientific explanations don't come in easy-to-digest pithy one-liners like you get from the right-wing parrots, [mvscal] dumbfuck [/mvscal].

Each one of those posts was in direct response to a false neocon talking point being regurgitated around here.

From what I skimmed of those articles, they were every bit as guilty of the same "that data doesn't mean anything" bullshit that the other side engages in.

Dinsdale wrote:From what I skimmed of those articles

Well if you're interested in more than just skimming you can follow-up on the scientific journal articles cited.

Because goodness knows, I'll never get enough of the "scientific community's" bouts of "My data and theories RULE, and yours mean nothing."

That's always hellafresh, and sound science, as well.

Dinsdale wrote: hellafresh

Dins, as usual, makes a damned good point.

Piling up a mountain of references means jack unless one knows how good the scientific methodology to collect the data was, how significant the data area, and how objective and valid the conclusions drawn from the data are. The HUGE problem for many of us -myself included- is that without the proper background in the field, analyzing the methodology, data, and conclusions is beyond our true grasp unless we seriously hunker down and make a point of reading an assload of stuff. Most of us don't have the time, so we basically have been depending on various media outlets and media-friendly scientists (and media and industry hacks pretending to be science experts) to "decipher" the data for us. As a result, the information we get is either biased or accused of being biased. For every expert one side pulls out, the other side pulls one out. One side screams political bias, the other side screams the same thing. The fact that the folks on the board who have taken a side have pretty much marched in lockstep with the talking points handed out by their political affiliations just shows that truly objective information and analysis is hard, if not impossible, to get. Let's just say that there's not a single person on the board I'd remotely consider an unbiased, knowledgeable source on the matter.

I have a science background and still read articles from scientific journals (Cell, Science, Nature, JID, e.g.) all the time. My background, however, is in molecular and cellular biology. It took me freaking YEARS of additional background reading, conferences and professional development grad level classes to pick up enough expertise to get the background to understand, discuss, and teach evolutionary theory in a meaningful way (that's why I feel comfortable debating folks on the topic on the boards). The global warming debate, in my opinion, would require as much effort on my part for me to "pick a side" and debate/discuss it. I just don't have the time right now. Quite frankly, I'm convinced that no one else on the board is investing that much into a truly objective search either, instead getting their ideologically-filtered ammo from politically-biased sources. As a result, neither side on the board has done a damned thing to sway me, nor, IMNSHO, should they sway anyone else.

You'll notice theRussian dude who goes with the "Mars is warming too" bit was dismissed by scientists because "his theory goes against the prevailing opinion."


Yeah, no politics there.


The earth being spherical used to go against the grain of prevailing opinion, too.

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:You'll notice theRussian dude who goes with the "Mars is warming too" bit was dismissed by scientists because "his theory goes against the prevailing opinion."

Yes, very "scientific."

The first clue that somebody is full of shit on the issue is when they start babbling about consensus. Consensus is a political term with absolutely no scientific relevance.

Shutup dipshit, you and your bullshit one-line talking points you were parading as fact just got plungered.

Of course you're going to praddle on about how consensus is meaningless when it suits your agenda.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Dins, as usual, makes a damned good point.

Piling up a mountain of references means jack unless one knows how good the scientific methodology to collect the data was, how significant the data area, and how objective and valid the conclusions drawn from the data are. The HUGE problem for many of us -myself included- is that without the proper background in the field, analyzing the methodology, data, and conclusions is beyond our true grasp unless we seriously hunker down and make a point of reading an assload of stuff. Most of us don't have the time, so we basically have been depending on various media outlets and media-friendly scientists (and media and industry hacks pretending to be science experts) to "decipher" the data for us. As a result, the information we get is either biased or accused of being biased. For every expert one side pulls out, the other side pulls one out. One side screams political bias, the other side screams the same thing. The fact that the folks on the board who have taken a side have pretty much marched in lockstep with the talking points handed out by their political affiliations just shows that truly objective information and analysis is hard, if not impossible, to get. Let's just say that there's not a single person on the board I'd remotely consider an unbiased, knowledgeable source on the matter.

I have a science background and still read articles from scientific journals (Cell, Science, Nature, JID, e.g.) all the time. My background, however, is in molecular and cellular biology. It took me freaking YEARS of additional background reading, conferences and professional development grad level classes to pick up enough expertise to get the background to understand, discuss, and teach evolutionary theory in a meaningful way (that's why I feel comfortable debating folks on the topic on the boards). The global warming debate, in my opinion, would require as much effort on my part for me to "pick a side" and debate/discuss it. I just don't have the time right now. Quite frankly, I'm convinced that no one else on the board is investing that much into a truly objective search either, instead getting their ideologically-filtered ammo from politically-biased sources. As a result, neither side on the board has done a damned thing to sway me, nor, IMNSHO, should they sway anyone else.

That's kind of been my point. I'm not a scientist and I haven't been claiming to be one.

I can see which side has vastly superior sources supporting their arguments, however.

Justa Heel wrote:

mvscal wrote:Yes, very "scientific."

The first clue that somebody is full of shit on the issue is when they start babbling about consensus. Consensus is a political term with absolutely no scientific relevance.

Shutup dipshit, you and your bullshit one-line talking points you were parading as fact just got plungered.

Of course you're going to praddle on about how consensus is meaningless when it suits your agenda.

And you will continue to Control-Cuda articles you think support your bias without even a cursory understanding of the science involved, thus continuing the circle of shit.

stuckinia wrote:

Justa Heel wrote:

mvscal wrote:Yes, very "scientific."

The first clue that somebody is full of shit on the issue is when they start babbling about consensus. Consensus is a political term with absolutely no scientific relevance.

Shutup dipshit, you and your bullshit one-line talking points you were parading as fact just got plungered.

Of course you're going to praddle on about how consensus is meaningless when it suits your agenda.

And you will continue to Control-Cuda articles you think support your bias without even a cursory understanding of the science involved, thus continuing the circle of shit.

No, I'll bring forth studies published by university-based scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals.

As opposed to corporate-funded articles.

It's not my fault if you can't tell the difference.

The only reason I'm "biased" in the matter at all is that the disparity in the quality of argument between the two sides is so blatantly lopsided. Otherwise I wouldn't really care.

Peer-reviewed journals are simply resources for further research. They are in no way the final truth on a subject, be it global warming, Francisella, or hummingbird migration. Also, corporate-funding does not negate the results. Or do you believe that the receipt of government money makes the data infallible? Do you realize that university research is not immune to politics, both internal and external? Your “disparity” is not necessarily quality of argument, but merely quantity. Now that don't necessarily make it fucking so. I will give a personal example; my lab has contended the presence of a capsule for Francisella, going so far as to isolate it. However, until recently, consensus in the field was that the virulent bacteria did not possess a capsule, although there was much debate. Guess what? The consensus was wrong as capsule is now accepted as a virulence determinant. Consensus can go astray.

mvscal wrote:Consensus is a political term with absolutely no scientific relevance.

Not exactly correct.

Consensus is a most definitely a part of the collective scientific effort, involving the general agreement of researchers in the particular field (which includes grunt techs with just bachelor's degrees but who do the actual work, all the way to the PhD's in the field) on the validity of the methodology, data, and interpretation of the data. If consensus had "absolutely no scientific relevance," then there would be no point in peer review, publication, conferences, etc.

Consensus changes as credible evidence from credible researchers acculumulates. At one point, the hypothesis that mitochondria and chloroplasts were once independent protobacteria that were taken into another bacteria to form a symbiotic relationship was controversial and laughed at. On the basis of credible supporting evidence, however, Lynn Margulis has swayed the consensus of scientific opinion and now we teach the endosymbiotic theory as strongly supported.

Peter Duesberg was a prominent retrovirologist and Kary Mullis is the Nobel-prize winning inventor of PCR...and both of them argue vehemently that HIV does not cause AIDS. Why aren't their arguments taken seriously? Because the scientific consensus of those in the field (myself included) was that the preponderance of data supporting the HIV-AIDS link was far stronger than their alternative hypotheses. That doesn't stop scientifically-ignorant whackjobs from citing their work.

Now, where mvscal is 100% on the money is that polling hundreds or thousands of "scientists" regardless of their expertise in the specific topic (as has been done in the global warming debate) or citing pointless, scientifically worthless petitions is utterly without ANY kind of merit. Polling biologists, for example, with regards to their opinions on the topic of anthropogenic CO2 is worthless - unless the biologists questioned have an actual background in the field.

Just because someone claims that they have a scientific degree doesn't mean that their opinion on a scientific topic is worth a dime. I've seen this time and again in the evolution debates. 'Thumpers LOVE to cite Michael Behe as a "big time" scientist who has "valid" arguments against natural selection and LOVE to quote arguments from his book (Darwin's Black Box). The problem is...Behe is a less-than-spectacular biochemist at Lehigh University who doesn't know jack shit about biological evolution and has displayed his ignorance for all to see in his book. Hell, the arguments and claims he puts forth in his book for "irreducible complexity" were disproven before his book even went to press. Not that it stops 'thumpers from citing his scientifically discredited work in debates. Hell, Jonathan Wells makes a good living by parading his questionable scientific credentials and lying about scientific data. Despite these examples, in the case of natural selection, the scientific consensus is that across various disciplines involved (geology, evolutionary developmental biology -evo devo-, molecular biology, genetics, physiology, etc.) is that natural selection has the strongest support and is accepted.

To dismiss consensus out of hand as unscientific is inaccurate. What I believe mvscal means to disparage is the less-than-scientific poll-taking from cherry-picked indivuals or packs of "scientists" who may or may not have any expertise in what the hell they are allegedly supporting. I have to agree with mvscal that the word "consensus" is being bandied about in a way that makes it scientifically worthless.

I have little faith in conventions of researchers who already have a political axe to grind against the U.S. supporting arguments that "just happen" to blame America. I have little faith in researchers with leftist, anti-corporate bents who argue strongly for the anthropogenic causation of global warming, and little faith in right-wing, corporately-funded researchers who dismiss it out of hand. The political views of those involved color their research and their interpretations. For either side to claim that they're the politically-neutral one while the other is biased is frigging laughable. The messengers for each side are tainted, thanks to the financial and political views of all involved and the nature of the research.

And it just gets funnier --

WASHINGTON A new report from a panel of esteemed generals and admirals warns that global climate change poses a serious national security threat.

The C-N-A Corporation report says uncontrolled climate change could easily produce more severe storms, more droughts and a rising global sea level.

The study is especially concerned about Asia and Latin America, where large numbers of people live close to the sea and where elevated sea levels could reduce available farmland and drinking water, and increase the risk of rampant infectious disease. That, in turn, would then lead to political instability in areas not now at risk.

The centerpiece recommendation: controlling greenhouse gases is essential if the U-S is to avoid being drawn into such instability.

If you need that translated from polispeak to English -- it meeans Halliburton/PNAC finally fugured out a way to profit from the Global Warming on Terror.