Science is Dying.

[busterdog]

Long live the King.

What is happening at East Anglia is an epochal event. As the hard sciences—physics, biology, chemistry, electrical engineering—came to dominate intellectual life in the last century, some academics in the humanities devised the theory of postmodernism, which liberated them from their colleagues in the sciences. Postmodernism, a self-consciously "unprovable" theory, replaced formal structures with subjectivity. With the revelations of East Anglia, this slippery and variable intellectual world has crossed into the hard sciences.
This has harsh implications for the credibility of science generally. Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons. But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies. The New England Journal of Medicine has turned into a weird weekly amalgam of straight medical-research and propaganda for the Obama redesign of U.S. medicine.
The East Anglians' mistreatment of scientists who challenged global warming's claims—plotting to shut them up and shut down their ability to publish—evokes the attempt to silence Galileo. The exchanges between Penn State's Michael Mann and East Anglia CRU director Phil Jones sound like Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General of the Inquisition.
For three centuries Galileo has symbolized dissent in science. In our time, most scientists outside this circle have kept silent as their climatologist fellows, helped by the cardinals of the press, mocked and ostracized scientists who questioned this grand theory of global doom. Even a doubter as eminent as Princeton's Freeman Dyson was dismissed as an aging crank.
Beneath this dispute is a relatively new, very postmodern environmental idea known as "the precautionary principle." As defined by one official version: "When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." The global-warming establishment says we know "enough" to impose new rules on the world's use of carbon fuels. The dissenters say this demotes science's traditional standards of evidence.
The Environmental Protection Agency's dramatic Endangerment Finding in April that greenhouse gas emissions qualify as an air pollutant—with implications for a vast new regulatory regime—used what the agency called a precautionary approach. The EPA admitted "varying degrees of uncertainty across many of these scientific issues." Again, this puts hard science in the new position of saying, close enough is good enough. One hopes civil engineers never build bridges under this theory.
The Obama administration's new head of policy at EPA, Lisa Heinzerling, is an advocate of turning precaution into standard policy. In a law-review article titled "Law and Economics for a Warming World," Ms. Heinzerling wrote, "Policy formation based on prediction and calculation of expected harm is no longer relevant; the only coherent response to a situation of chaotically worsening outcomes is a precautionary policy. . . ."
If the new ethos is that "close-enough" science is now sufficient to achieve political goals, serious scientists should be under no illusion that politicians will press-gang them into service for future agendas. Everyone working in science, no matter their politics, has an stake in cleaning up the mess revealed by the East Anglia emails. Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it.

Climate Change Fraud - Climategate: Science Is Dying

Climategate is a lot like the creation debate, evolution, etc. Including the classless silence of the advocates of climate change. They built their empire and wildly profitable institutions and business on non-science. And then they lack the ability to demonstrate shame. Careers were ruined. Peer review was rigged. It ended up being about 1. the money; 2. crazed religious zeal for an idol.

Presidents were duped. International bodies. And none of them, not one ... has an apology for any of it. Even if they are right, they remain unrepentently exclusive. No contrary science is welcome.

Science is creating jargon to replace its wounded image, rather than confessing its sin. Just as when Ben Stein outed the liars and thugs.

Despite the enormous investment of the public and politicians in crap science and monopolar nondebate, science maintains its purity and boasts in its virginal peer review system. But we all know, we are dealing with a ho.

 

[Bushido216]

This is ranting. Ranting is what crazy people do.

 

[busterdog]

This is ranting. Ranting is what crazy people do.

I would rather be any kind of a thing than a crazy man, yet I would not be thee.

(apologies to King Lear)

Buzz off.

 

[Chesterton]

Journalism is dead.
Science is dead.
True sailing is dead.
Get used to it.

 

[avra34v2]

This is ranting. Ranting is what crazy people do.

This is generalizing. Generalizing is what most people with horrible logic do.

 

[Sphinx777]

​

 

[Chesterton]

"War On String May Be Unwinnable", says Cat General.

 

[Bushido216]

This is generalizing. Generalizing is what most people with horrible logic do.

So... the long post about how those conspiratorial scientists are taking over the world, sinning and eating babies was... what?

It certainly wasn't useful, enlightening, thoughtful or well conceived. It was a huge quote followed by some conspiracy theory.

 

[busterdog]

Journalism is dead.
Science is dead.
True sailing is dead.
Get used to it.

CF is dead.

It is proven here every day with so many posts.

Let it die.

Jhn 12:24 Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.
I didn't understand Chesterton, so I am apologizing and fixing my response.

 

[busterdog]

So... the long post about how those conspiratorial scientists are taking over the world, sinning and eating babies was... what?

It certainly wasn't useful, enlightening, thoughtful or well conceived. It was a huge quote followed by some conspiracy theory.

Yours is the conspiracy, not understanding diddly about what is posted here or by creationists generally. Its all a conspiracy theory that we accuse you of eating children.

How do you feel about abortion, by the way?

You take the bait so well, lets see what you do with that.

 

[Chesterton]

I didn't understand Chesterton, so I am apologizing and fixing my response.

My fault. I was trying to be clever.

 

[Bushido216]

Yours is the conspiracy, not understanding diddly about what is posted here or by creationists generally. Its all a conspiracy theory that we accuse you of eating children.

How do you feel about abortion, by the way?

You take the bait so well, lets see what you do with that.

Ugh, yeah.

Cleanup on Aisle 4.

 

[alexross8]

I hope science dies.

Look at everything good it brought us:
Medicines
plastics
gasoline
airplane
and much more.

But why do we need medicines for diseases and cancers?

Science came up with harmful drugs , cancer from pollution , cancer from radiation , war , and much worse.
We didn`t need science in the first place.

To get rid of suffering , technology is required.
But to get technology , you need to make sacrafice in human blood and suffering .

The more we learn , the more dangerous we are.

If we got rid of science right now , there would be no violence.
People would become more religious , and terrorism could be handled more accurately through negotiating , because our religious knowledge would be far greater than our knowledge of weponry .

 

[Sphinx777]

​

 

[TheBlueBlurr]

I hope science dies.

Look at everything good it brought us:
Medicines
plastics
gasoline
airplane
and much more.

But why do we need medicines for diseases and cancers?

Science came up with harmful drugs , cancer from pollution , cancer from radiation , war , and much worse.
We didn`t need science in the first place.

To get rid of suffering , technology is required.
But to get technology , you need to make sacrafice in human blood and suffering .

The more we learn , the more dangerous we are.

If we got rid of science right now , there would be no violence.
People would become more religious , and terrorism could be handled more accurately through negotiating , because our religious knowledge would be far greater than our knowledge of weponry .

Go live under a tree then good sir!

 

[Znex]

Guys, you do realise that science and evolution are completely separate groups? Many Christians are scientists, and much evidence for God is being discovered by science.

 

[Willtor]

Long live the King.

Climate Change Fraud - Climategate: Science Is Dying

Climategate is a lot like the creation debate, evolution, etc. Including the classless silence of the advocates of climate change. They built their empire and wildly profitable institutions and business on non-science. And then they lack the ability to demonstrate shame. Careers were ruined. Peer review was rigged. It ended up being about 1. the money; 2. crazed religious zeal for an idol.

Presidents were duped. International bodies. And none of them, not one ... has an apology for any of it. Even if they are right, they remain unrepentently exclusive. No contrary science is welcome.

Science is creating jargon to replace its wounded image, rather than confessing its sin. Just as when Ben Stein outed the liars and thugs.

Despite the enormous investment of the public and politicians in crap science and monopolar nondebate, science maintains its purity and boasts in its virginal peer review system. But we all know, we are dealing with a ho.

Even if you are right and climate change is fraudulent, this article is not a good way to raise the argument. If its point is climate change fraud and it starts rambling about health care, post modernism, and all this other stuff, it's a Rush Limbaugh-esque (or Al Franken-esque, if you lean the other way, politically) bit of hackery. These kinds of articles raise temperatures but they don't inform. Note that there was no data in this article. It panders to those who are already convinced, but it's very bad for making new disciples. Supposing that climate change is a fraud: this sort of article is going to turn away fence-sitters.

Busterdog, if you want to fight climate change as un-scientific, find the sites that present data.

 

[Faith.Man]

Climate Change Fraud - Climategate: Science Is Dying

Science seems to be unduly influenced by those not in the scientific field. For instance, the science of Galileo was influenced by the Church, and he was forced to recant. Evolution was filled with false claims with respect to the "missing link" by scientists looking for notoriety. The same can be said about the "global warming" scientists today except, instead of notoriety, they are looking for grant money, or government funding. It's unfortunate that all of science is tainted by the actions of a few.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Guys, you do realise that science and evolution are mutual groups? Many Christians are scientists, and much evidence for God is being discovered by science.

No not really. There is a bunch of new stuff that people with a confirmation bias can use to jump to conclusions, but not actual evidence. One could say it is almost insulting to fit God into the box which is required for evidence to be valid for.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Long live the King.

Climate Change Fraud - Climategate: Science Is Dying

Climategate is a lot like the creation debate, evolution, etc. Including the classless silence of the advocates of climate change. They built their empire and wildly profitable institutions and business on non-science. And then they lack the ability to demonstrate shame. Careers were ruined. Peer review was rigged. It ended up being about 1. the money; 2. crazed religious zeal for an idol.

Presidents were duped. International bodies. And none of them, not one ... has an apology for any of it. Even if they are right, they remain unrepentently exclusive. No contrary science is welcome.

Science is creating jargon to replace its wounded image, rather than confessing its sin. Just as when Ben Stein outed the liars and thugs.

Despite the enormous investment of the public and politicians in crap science and monopolar nondebate, science maintains its purity and boasts in its virginal peer review system. But we all know, we are dealing with a ho.

Science does not die. Reputations of scientist, and scientific groups of thoughts die, but science itself does not.