Death of Science

[Misery]

I consider myself a science nut, while I have moved to different path in life I spend almost all of my free time reading books, watching doco's or staring into the night sky through my telescope.

Recently I am seeing more and more things about the USA which has started to remind me of that episode of Simpsons where mob goes rioting after academics lead the town.

Now, it is not like America was always being led by academics and scientist but nobody can deny that USA was leading scientific power (and still is)... but how long is that going to last with Tea Party in congress? What is going to be the fate of NASA, observatory program and other science endeavours that USA is leading the way in?

This article from NY Times show people on verge of delusion, but what is frightening is that is not just poor and educated that think like that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us...me&ref=general

As I am not there I am not seeing this first hand, I would like opinions from members of the forum that call America Home (especially bible belt states) to explain this rejection of science and wide dementia that seems to be relevant in the states and if anybody is trying to counter this and how? (Apart from moving to Canada)

[Spartan90]

Move to Cana... oh wait.

“I read my Bible,” Mr. Dennison said. “He made this earth for us to utilize.”

I adore this bit. The Bible also says that those who destroy the earth will also be destroyed. Yet another hypocritical comment by a fundamentalist that I'm sure has read neither one page of his Bible, nor one page of a scientific text book. I applaud you, Mr Dennison. Now go back to sitting on your porch and polishing your gun.

[The Noble Lord]

It's very interesting article here Misery, I guess the focus is on expansion of the religiopus "far-right" and cponservative neo-cons in the US while at the same time putting pressure on the scientific establishment. Interesting. Well the debate between the two sides of the spectrum is ongoing, and there are interesting things to watch out for but I wouldn't exactly call it the "death of the science" or anything like that.

[Phier]

I knew without even looking this would be some crap about climate change.

God damn it so much.

Its not the death of 'science' do some god damn research on the subject, look at skeptical views from a scientific standpoint instead of a political one and maybe you will see that climate is not exactly the litmus test for 'science dying'.

[Misery]

I, myself are not entirely convinced that humans are 100% to blame for raise in global temperatures but I had chance to sit and listen Ross Garnaut talk about the issue and had to agree that even if there is a doubt in your mind it is better to do something for nothing then to do nothing and suffer the consequences.
It reminds me of the smoker who knows that there are few doctors who say that smoking is not dangerous (paid by tobacco lobby) for your health so he keeps smoking and hopes that 99% of scientific community is wrong and that he will live full and healthy life.



BUT this has nothing to do with climate change, it has all to do with assault on scientific theories by masses of fundamentalists.

This is just a first target that they have set on themselves, next one will probably be Theory of Evolution... With ToE like Climate Change people would make us believe that there is some kind of scientific debate... but in fact it is science community vs few sell-outs that are payed by big energy and big oil.... JUST LIKE A TEA PARTY...

Does anybody really think that Rand & O’Donnell will spend billions on NASA scientific projects (imagine world without Great Observatories program) or will they curve spending and direct more money toward military?

What about stem cell research... can you guarantee that if these delusional people get majority in congress (now or in 5 or 10 years) that intelligent design will not be thought in the schools?

“I read my Bible,” Mr. Dennison said. “He made this earth for us to utilize.”

I know that Mr. Dennison will approve of that

I am more than happy to live in the country with prime minister who publicly can say that she is Atheist and still be elected to lead the country... What do you think are the chances of presidential candidate in USA if they publicly say that they are atheist?
These same people who are discriminating against gays, minorities, immigrants and atheists are the same people who are leading charge against science, Death of Science? Maybe not but it is WAR on science!

[GuineaPig]

I knew without even looking this would be some crap about climate change.

God damn it so much.

Its not the death of 'science' do some god damn research on the subject, look at skeptical views from a scientific standpoint instead of a political one and maybe you will see that climate is not exactly the litmus test for 'science dying'.

Just like evolution!

[DaVinci]

I'm not an american and can only follow it on TV and internet what's goin' on in the US, but elfdude is american, and iirc. he said (in another thread) that more than 60 % americans are creationists, that says a lot imo..
Else, i know from an american (who joined the Tea Party, normally an intelligent guy), that the Tea Party is a collection-valley of disgusted americans, who do not agree with the Obama programs and the Dems politics in the whole, just not only fundamentalists and such, but everybody right from center has a tendency now to join the Tea Party or find their programs at least appealing. In my opinion a quite alarming development for the US.

We had another thread about school-duty or not, a good time ago in the Academy forum. Maybe there is something wrong in the US with house-schooling liberty andthelike ... but that won't be the only reason.

"Interesting" things at least for the average educated european - i guess, most europeans do not understand the vast attraction of the Tea Party's ideas. Looks all like a fall-back of the political development in the US. And i fear, if the Tea Party makes it into the government (also if only partially), it'll separate the US from the world again (or still more so to speak).

[xcorps]

Oh look, everybody is blaming the Tea Party for opposing (along with a majority of Americans) a "climate bill" that has nothing to do with reducing emissions but will increase every Americans cost of living substantially.

What a bunch of neanderthals.

[Lord Rahl]

Oh look, everybody is blaming the Tea Party for opposing (along with a majority of Americans) a "climate bill" that has nothing to do with reducing emissions but will increase every Americans cost of living substantially.

What a bunch of neanderthals.

^^^
This

This NY Times article is...weird. I mean, I dislike Tea Party politics as much as the next person, I had to "hide" my aunt's completely biased posts on Facebook because it was so annoying (she's a big Tea Party-er), but the article is pretty much 100% unnecessary, in that it assumes Tea Party members don't believe in global warming and are probably zealously Christian, and implies skeptics of global warming fall into the same category.

Everyone should realize global warming is more of a political reality than a scientific reality. It shouldn't be any surprise that the Tea Party, and oil companies, support politicians who are against global warming just like the NY Times posting this article isn't a surprise either. Are all of the reasons for being against global warming objective and legitimate? No, but the pro-global warming crowd isn't above bias and greed.

[DaVinci]

Everyone should realize global warming is more of a political reality than a scientific reality.

What?
Nonsense, imo. a valid discussion is if the human society contributes or not, while the world-wide scientific majority says yes we do (and is anyway a science-logical conclusion). The global and regional effects/impacts incl. the major reasons are in researchment/discussion, actually not the global warming in itself, while we still cannot predict exactly if and where and which countereffects there will be or can be - nonetheless the global warming is a measured fact and impacts do exist already.

[Agent Miles]

Science is alive and well in the good ole’ USA. Humble Fermilab is doing its best to give the LHC a run for indirect evidence of the Higgs Boson. We still have a space program and last time I checked intelligent design had still lost out to evolution. We do allow debate here though, which I don’t see as unscientific. Good ideas should be replaced by better ones and bad ones should be hung out to twist slowly in the wind. I’m willing to bet that the USA will generate more iPod apps than any other nation! (sarcasm off) Humans have no doubt spent more on research in the last century than in the previous thousand centuries combined. The biased implication of the NYT’s article is pure scare tactics based on pseudo-intellectual bigotry.

[Vizsla]

I’ve been wondering for a while now how climatologists explain the archaeological evidence of Viking settlements in southern Greenland.

There are dairy farm settlements under the permafrost. No cow could survive there now. There are graves in the permafrost. It’s quite hard to see how the Vikings could have dug holes in the permafrost. There are also entire woods of tree roots in the permafrost. Trees can’t grow through permafrost. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that it wasn’t as cold in the 980s in Greenland as it is now, which is weird.
I’m open-minded. Maybe climatologists do have a good explanation. I’d like to know what it is.

[GuineaPig]

I’ve been wondering for a while now how climatologists explain the archaeological evidence of Viking settlements in southern Greenland.

There are dairy farm settlements under the permafrost. No cow could survive there now. There are graves in the permafrost. It’s quite hard to see how the Vikings could have dug holes in the permafrost. There are also entire woods of tree roots in the permafrost. Trees can’t grow through permafrost. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that it wasn’t as cold in the 980s in Greenland as it is now, which is weird.
I’m open-minded. Maybe climatologists do have a good explanation. I’d like to know what it is.

Southern Greenland's temperature can vary quite a bit depending on the course of the Gulf Stream. Ice core samples show that from about the 9th century to the onset of the Little Ice Age (15th/16th century) Greenland was unusually warm; as much as a couple degrees warmer than usual.

During the Little Ice Age, the Gulf Stream slackened by about 10% http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2966

Afterwards, it's likely the course of the Gulf Stream was deflected more eastward, and Greenland never received the same amount of energy as before.

[Phier]

Southern Greenland's temperature can vary quite a bit depending on the course of the Gulf Stream. Ice core samples show that from about the 9th century to the onset of the Little Ice Age (15th/16th century) Greenland was unusually warm; as much as a couple degrees warmer than usual.

During the Little Ice Age, the Gulf Stream slackened by about 10% http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2966

Afterwards, it's likely the course of the Gulf Stream was deflected more eastward, and Greenland never received the same amount of energy as before.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../291/5508/1497

People have been trying to make the medieval warm period a local phenomena because its rather 'inconvenient' for global warming people to explain, but sadly, for them, it appears to have been global.

[conon394]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/291/5508/1497

People have been trying to make the medieval warm period a local phenomena because its rather 'inconvenient' for global warming people to explain, but sadly, for them, it appears to have been global.

Phier do you ever actually read the articles you cite or just like the sound of the title? The one you note is full of ifs and I suspect - its more or less an opinion - you do know how you get published in science right? In any case the argument of the first part for ignoring tree rings was strongly rejected by other scientist in reply.

[DaVinci]

Phier do you ever actually read the articles you cite or just like the sound of the title? The one you note is full of ifs and I suspect - its more or less an opinion - you do know how you get published in science right? In any case the argument of the first part for ignoring tree rings was strongly rejected by other scientist in reply.

Phier is always in favour for the global-warming scepticists. However i agree with your reply to him.
But it's of course his right to advertise this scepticism where he can, just as all the other scepticists do, with every little information they get.
It won't change though the worldwide assumption/conclusion-consensus in this science-department, that the human society has a strong impact.

It's of less worth to discuss this in special in this thread again. We have whole (huge) threads of global warming discussions in the debate forums with dozens of graphs/tables/source-links etc..

The thread here is about the Tea Party's general positions to science-work, if i understood it right.

[Phier]

Phier do you ever actually read the articles you cite or just like the sound of the title? The one you note is full of ifs and I suspect - its more or less an opinion - you do know how you get published in science right? In any case the argument of the first part for ignoring tree rings was strongly rejected by other scientist in reply.

You mean the proxy data that gave us the Mann hockey stick

[Helm]

This thread assumes that science and religion can't co-exist, look at ancient Greece and Islam during it's golden era where religion actually helped to enhance the advancement of science. Isaac Newton was heavily into occult practices but still did some great science alongside all that, it didn't limit his potential in any way.

[Phier]

This thread assumes that science and religion can't co-exist, look at ancient Greece and Islam during it's golden era where religion actually helped to enhance the advancement of science. Isaac Newton was heavily into occult practices but still did some great science alongside all that, it didn't limit his potential in any way.

Evolution and the scale of the cosmos kinda ruined that for everyone.

[Helm]

Evolution and the scale of the cosmos kinda ruined that for everyone.

Did it ruin it or make it better?