shuksan Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." Stanford Climatologist Dr. Stephen Schneider Oct. 1989 Discover magazine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 To err is dysfunctional, to forgive co-dependent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 I think that speaks volumes about the intellectual dishonesty of the Malthusian climatologist faction. I want honesty and impartiality in science. "Effective" scientists are essentially politicians and dishonest scientists who inevitably skew results. When life depends on it (say in aviation or pharmaceutical industries for instance), these "effective" scientists endanger or kill people because of their "effectiveness" in favor of their sponsor's ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 okay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Scientists are gay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Remember DFA, the most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 thats funny DFA I always thought scientist would be sort of serious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Das is vi it is good to take a critical eye to "popular" literature, and look a the information presented in the "scientific" literature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 There's nothing gayer than a serious scientist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 I can remember when the air was clean and sex was dirty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts which is exactly what is done in the peer reviewed literature. The IPCC report (which is the most up-to-date, comprehensive document on climate science) is based on peer reviewed publications, not media soundbites. nice try but don't confuse issues next time, i.e. nobody said the final word on climate science was to be found in mass media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Complicated subject but don't confuse popular literature and scientific literature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacier Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Did anyone else listen to the 'Science Friday' today on NPR - had a discussion of skewed scientific advisors for the Administration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Immediately invalid. NPR is commie propaganda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 I thought this is precisely what I was trying to say, i.e. scientific-peer-reviewed versus popular-non-peer reviewed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Yeah, Bob Edwards has certainly been rabidly pushing work collectives, drab clothing, and NPR's new 'Hammer and Sickle' collection of tote bags, travel mugs, and day planners. You're definitely on to something here, Jim. Crack, maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 I agree, and agree with you. I was a slow typer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 That would be Ira Flatow....I dug it when he hosted Newton's Apple back in the day... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Presumably Newton's RED Apple, oui? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Wha? If you're referring to the funky 70's-esque animation at the start with the awful music, then yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 wait a second... you guys wouldn't be talking about National Pentagon Radio would you? Ever give a thought to the dominant paradigm that is presented there... by an agency that is directly funded by politicians? Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, for example, actually cites ABC of having more balanced reporting of issues revolving around Palestine than NPR. That was based on the distribution of the words 'attack' and 'retaliation' in new reporting over, I think, a six-month time frame. Be critical of all of your sources of information, including the ones you like. That is also good science. How do you know what you know? If you can't answer that, or at least understand why that question is important, then you basically have a lot of poorly supported second hand information whether it is correct or no. Shit, it's friday and time for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 RobBob, I don't know where you are coming from, but I have worked as a scientist for 20 years in pharmaceuticals, and I cannot think of ONE time anyone ever falsified data. We know that honesty is EVERYTHING. Without honesty and integrity, you might as well become a lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Trask, you've hit the nail on the head. You're right, "that's funny.." is how things get discovered. When some _observation_ doesn't fit the model, then the model get's changed. This is all a catbird troll isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 "yeah dude your off belay" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.