tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post2256092604099320878..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Sarewitz Butchers Brian's SongEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-81119847937230675242013-01-05T05:30:05.820-05:002013-01-05T05:30:05.820-05:00The comment under Willard's at Curry's say...The comment under Willard's at Curry's says:<br /><br /><i><br />Chad Wozniak | January 4, 2013 at 2:42 am | Reply<br />Mr. Starkey:<br />If my opposition to dishonesty and fascistic tactics makes me polarized, then so be it. I’m also polarized when it comes to Nazism, mass murder and sexual abuse.<br />I makde no apologies for being thus polarized – and I stand by my statement, which coincides with that of 31,000+ scientists signing the Project Petition, that AGW is utterly without basis in fact.<br /></i><br /><br />People that that are obviously never going to accept the science. And this individual seems to be a pretty typical "skeptic".Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-77813136400034834062013-01-04T20:47:30.926-05:002013-01-04T20:47:30.926-05:00How about I'll think about voting Republican w...How about I'll think about voting Republican when they accept physical reality (e.g. climate change), quit trying to foist off fairy tales as biology lessons, and promoting policies that destroy the middle class?<br /><br />The last time I read Sarewitz, he was predicting the end of science due to "creeping" systematic error. <br /><br />I'm starting to feel that Ken Sarewitz is the poster child for the dangers of sending stupid to college.a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70446238193186674562013-01-04T17:26:03.244-05:002013-01-04T17:26:03.244-05:00In the spirit of Jeffrey's comment, here's...In the spirit of Jeffrey's comment, here's How to gain more balance of power in a bi-partisan process such as proposed by Sarewitz in four easy steps:<br /><br />1. Become an independant voter.<br /><br />2. Win a Nobel prize or something that earns you klout.<br /><br />3. Give your change to the Blue Elephant.<br /><br />4. Participate in a Bi-Partisan Process, like the signing of a petition.<br /><br />There. More balance of power.<br /><br />http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/03/new-years-resolution-for-scientists/#comment-282363willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-17737713714351881932013-01-04T16:29:19.782-05:002013-01-04T16:29:19.782-05:00IIRC, James Hansen and Kerry Emmanuel are both Rep...IIRC, James Hansen and Kerry Emmanuel are both Republicans.Jeffrey Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966839006518642902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-53684040579144093562013-01-04T12:56:37.957-05:002013-01-04T12:56:37.957-05:00Sarewitz seems to be playing the science side of t...Sarewitz seems to be playing the science side of the Sandy Hook warning: "don't you dare politicize this issue by uttering the truth and upsetting our carefully contrived self-delusional reverie."<br /><br />John Puma<br /><br />Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12479974040070719985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80980857495478422492013-01-04T10:49:51.360-05:002013-01-04T10:49:51.360-05:00Let's you and her fight Willard:)Let's you and her fight Willard:)<br /><br />EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-50190028180038652482013-01-04T10:10:21.322-05:002013-01-04T10:10:21.322-05:00Hereby is proposed a bi-partisan action between De...Hereby is proposed a bi-partisan action between Denizens and Rabbits against bi-partisanship:<br /><br />http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/03/new-years-resolution-for-scientists/#comment-282430<br /><br />For sake of coherence, I would call it a <b>Violent Agreement</b>.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-50794701239550302642013-01-04T07:18:41.747-05:002013-01-04T07:18:41.747-05:00Sarewitz writes:
"This concern rests on clear...Sarewitz writes:<br />"This concern rests on clear precedent. Conservatives in the US government have long been hostile to social science, which they believe tilts towards liberal political agendas. Consequently, the social sciences have remained poorly funded and politically vulnerable, and every so often Republicans threaten to eliminate the entire National Science Foundation budget for social science."<br /><br />So if the Republicans don't like the conclusions of the science, they try to make the science go away.<br />Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-89523059868046757332013-01-04T04:52:40.789-05:002013-01-04T04:52:40.789-05:00Maybe this post should be given a title.Maybe this post should be given a title.Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-81624501400724341762013-01-04T03:50:08.943-05:002013-01-04T03:50:08.943-05:00How can delay and denial succeed when almost all t...How can delay and denial succeed when almost all the scientists agree? <br /><br />Easy. Fund the extremes, and if there aren't any, fund development of groups that will take a position given them by the politicians and come up with rationalizations for it.<br /><br />It doesn't have to be good science, just "arguable."<br /><br />You can make a long list of public policy issues where almost all of the scientists agree. Public health journals are full of them.<br /><br />Who listens?<br /><br />The problem with the huge payback for investment in public health is that the benefit accrues to the public -- there's no way to make money doing it.<br /><br />Example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2717145/<br /><br />"Nevin (2000) finds that the variation in childhood gasoline lead exposure from 1941 to 1986 explains nearly 90% of the variation in violent crime rates from 1960 to 1998, and that lead paint explains 70% of the variation in murder rates from 1900 to 1960. Reyes (2002) takes the evidence of a relationship between lead poisoning and criminal behavior and estimates that the Clean Air Act (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2009) in the 1970s and 1980s accounts for one-third of the drop in crime throughout the 1990s."Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-53513993599950980192013-01-04T02:17:02.473-05:002013-01-04T02:17:02.473-05:00Sarewitz has a column in Nature, just as George Wi...<i>Sarewitz has a column in Nature, just as George Will has one in the Washington Post. It's good work when you can get it.</i><br /><br />A more interesting question is how Sarewitz got the <i>Nature</i> op-ed gig in 2009. Excluding the stunningly insipid stuff from the past two days, the recent output has also been <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/nature-explains-why-science-is-like-religion-based-on-faith/" rel="nofollow">spectacularly bad</a>. He's just another controversy from going the way of the Nature Climate Feedback blog.<br /><br /><i>Maybe tomorrow Ethon will lend a hand.</i><br /><br />Interested bunnies may like to investigate the history that Dan and Junior have. It's definitely worth a look for Ethon.Former Skepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-48104825805064256492013-01-04T00:46:03.826-05:002013-01-04T00:46:03.826-05:00Sarewitz's argument is something of a rehash o...Sarewitz's argument is something of a rehash of the claim there should be affirmative action for conservative academics. I've never been very convinced of that.<br /><br />I could see a parallel in this situation to gay rights activists. Most of them are Democrats and one can see pretty easily why that's the case. Those activists shouldn't put their political orientation in the closet. They should know how to talk to conservatives, but that doesn't mean shutting up entirely.<br /><br />Those few gay rights activists who remain politically conservative may be able to engage their side of the political fence in a different way. But it's a question of the gay conservatives speaking up, rather than silencing the majority of gay activists.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-3169642458095137572013-01-04T00:30:39.320-05:002013-01-04T00:30:39.320-05:00Scientists -- and the general public -- have to st...Scientists -- and the general public -- have to start behaving much more like Jim Hansen: criticizing the words and actions (or inaction) of leaders REGARDLESS of their party affiliation. No one gets a pass. <br /><br />The virtual silence of both major party candidates during the US election campaign and the foot-dragging by the Obama admin at Doha indicates the problem is much more deeply entrenched than most people either appreciate OR are willing to admit (if they actually recognize it).<br /><br />George Monbiot is one journalist who <a href="http://www.monbiot.com/2012/12/03/forbidden-planet/" rel="nofollow">actually does get it</a><br /><br />~@:><br /><br />PS For anyone who might have missed it, the election's over. Obama is safely in office.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83754966258335980592013-01-03T23:42:46.441-05:002013-01-03T23:42:46.441-05:00drive by comment on "those recommendations ha...drive by comment on "those recommendations have the support of scientists with conflicting beliefs.", somehow i think doing a paper where one author is a buddhist and the other is a muslim wouldn't ring a bell in some other belief systems... should it rather be a catholic and a protestant taking the 'discussion' back to the 16th century? <br />sub-arctic bunny.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31177704953450126152013-01-03T23:41:34.593-05:002013-01-03T23:41:34.593-05:00How to produce the bi-partisan process (BPP) in fo...How to produce the bi-partisan process (BPP) in four easy steps:<br /><br />http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/03/new-years-resolution-for-scientists/#comment-282331willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10741836015783330902013-01-03T23:01:14.031-05:002013-01-03T23:01:14.031-05:00Hmm, in "Sarewitz doubles down" he seems...Hmm, in "Sarewitz doubles down" he seems to be unaware (or is he?) that the reason basic science funding has triumphed these past few decades is precisely because of the Republican party's opposition to "picking winners", government-funded industrial policy, etc. It's the Republicans who always want to do away with the Department of Energy after all. Basic science has had bi-partisan support for a very long time. Applied science funding has been attacked and parts of it killed off by one side. There are certainly plenty of academics who would happily work on applied things if there was money in it - many applied physics departments do research largely funded by the defense department for instance.<br /><br />Now it seems with the libertarians taking over the Republican party, they have no patience for government funding of science at all (governments should only pay for police and national defense is the mantra I believe).<br /><br />As to the original piece, I'd give him a bit of slack (but it was still naive) - scientists do come in all sorts of political stripes, and it really doesn't hurt to show that. There are quite a few who vote Republican - or who used to anyway. Unfortunately touting Republican scientists (of which we've heard of a number in climate science over the years) tends to fall on quite deaf ears, because of course they can't *really* be a good Republican if they believe that stuff, can they. The old <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman" rel="nofollow">No True Scotsman fallacy</a> at work...Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10635577174009798992013-01-03T22:32:04.419-05:002013-01-03T22:32:04.419-05:00A Pielke Poe?
A Pielke Poe?<br /><br />Pinko Punkohttp://blog.3bulls.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-65093277636467152722013-01-03T22:13:35.627-05:002013-01-03T22:13:35.627-05:00I didn't get that, either. Sarewitz writes:&qu...I didn't get that, either. Sarewitz writes:"Given the bitter ideological divisions in the United States today, scientists could reach across the political divide once again and set an example for all." So, what do those scientists across the aisle (i.e. Republicans) have to offer? Other "scientific facts"? If so, those are not facts. If not, as it should be, they have the same facts as other scientists and nothing prevents them from "advocating" them. <br /><br />There is another possibility: that scientists are gathering one side of the aisle because they tend not to deny facts there. Because, well, facts have a liberal bias. In this case, there is simply nobody to reach across the aisle, and that's a problem.Marknoreply@blogger.com