Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I've not heard that. He did fire the IRS commissioner for not breaking the law this week.
New virus or not, human behavior remains the same, and much of the spread of disease centers on that. Right at the start of the pandemic, someone sent me a link to a story about a a health official combating the Spanish Flu, simply because the official and myself might be related. We weren't, but the article proved interesting.
None of this had a single thing to do with DOE climate "assessments". I have no interest in rehashing any "mask controversies".
On the contrary, it has everything to do with the fleeting aspect of government assessments; an example that should be fresh in everyone's mind. Government assessments tend to change with the political winds. An inconvenient truth, perhaps, but truth all the same.
The Fourth Assessment, published during the Trump Administration, is consistent with the others.
This is a relatively recent development that coincides with one of our politics parties deciding that truth in general is inconvenient and that the concept of "alternative facts" is actually a real thing rather than satire. Generally speaking, scientific assessments don't change significantly unless there is a massive shift in scientific understanding.
If someone runs for office on the platform that 2+2=5 and wins, then goes about changing all the documentation to reflect their beliefs, the next guy coming back through and fixing those changes, reverting the official record to reflect the fact that 2+2=4, is not evidence that math is political or that it changes with the political winds.
That's not how scientific assessments work. If one has changed due to politics, then it is completely on the politicians who made it change.
Unfortunately, it's not recent and it's both parties. I really thought most people realized this. Remember the old Emergency Broadcast System? It used to end with "If this had been an actual emergency..." can't recall the exact wording but basically was that listeners would be told where to turn for official information." When I was a child, that "official information" seemed dubious. My gut feeling was that it might be official, but it might not be truthful. It was obvious to a child even back then.
My point? If the government is involved, assessments are going to reflect government interests. Just that simple. What science says is one thing; what government says is another. Government will use what it finds convenient to advance those interests and ignore the rest. That's the nature of politics. If government wasn't involved in this particular matter, government wouldn't have been able to remove previous assessments.
Simple cynicism, nothing else.
We weren't talking about government, we were talking about a scientific report.
Just cynicism. That's all it is. You don't have evidence to back your claims. Just applying your cynicism as a presumption. As for "Clovis first" it was a reasonable hypothesis until evidence mounted that it was wrong. That a few old timers resisted is just human nature.
Never heard of such a thing. If you are giving a talk no one is going to haul you away. If you rant from the audience, they might, but the topic of your ranting is not relevant, only your rudeness.
I don't read journals that would even contemplate allowing such a thing.
Never heard of the gag? Interesting, but then again I think I'm at least a decade older and maybe it was something done back then. The source was in an article about string theory.
Never claimed I wasn't a cynic. I heard "Clovis Police" from archeologists discussing evidence of pre-Clovis culture appearance of humans in North America. There was a lot of push-back. Being that was what they did for a living, would think they would know what they were talking about.
What I've observed is easy to see if you just look. The OP gives an example. It's not something that started with the current administration. Sure, I'm cynical, but at times I wonder if I'm cynical enough.
Junk journals, predatory journals, AI slop are all issues, but I think you completely ignored what I said about them: I don't read such journals. And frankly, neither do any other scientists I work with. They also have nothing to do with the IPCC assessments.
No, I haven't.
I am aware of "Clovis First" and how stubborn the proponents were even in the light of growing evidence that Clovis was certainly not "first". I read about it in a popular science magazine 30 years ago, back when I already knew (from a knowledge of the evidence) that climate change was a real problem and not some "political tool".
It sounds like an excuse to attack science you don't like.
Seems to me these fake publications were flushed by a scientific method. There is a far cry between that and the government literally cooking the books.
And the infamous Schon scandal? Nature published at least one of his claims. Nor was Schon the only one. Here is an article from MIT's Technology Review::
I'm tell you, as an old cynical person, that if it comes from the government, it's going to reflect government views at that point in time. It will shift with administrations and whichever way the political winds blow. If it happens to be accurate, know that even a blind hog can find an acorn now and then. The trick is to compare it to non-government sources.
True, and my point was my cynicism about science. In my younger days would get exited about this and that study. But then there was something called polywater. Then it turned out that Gregor Mendel may have did a little book cooking, but then there's this:
Nope. Never heard of him or his scandal.
Never heard of "Technology Review" and historically Nature's standards for review in physics haven't been so great. Perhaps things are better now that they have several physics/astronomy "sub-versions" of "Nature". But frankly, I don't know of anything I've ever needed published in any of those either. I'll stick to the society journals.
The science is from primarily non-government sources.
First, since you said you never heard of the Schon scandal, here's what Wikipedia has to say:
