BS: Science under attack.

Subject: BS: Science under attack.
From: gnu
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 01:57 PM

Absolutely shocking!

The gist of the article... "Since April 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has engaged in a campaign of harassment against climate scientist Michael Mann through a groundless, intrusive investigation of his work at the University of Virginia between 1999 and 2005.

Escalating the attacks in early 2011, a Virginia activist group that denies the scientific consensus on climate change sought the same information through the state's open records law. And the ability of scientists in Virginia to ask tough questions about our world—and pursue contentious lines of research—is at stake.

The attack begins

Cuccinelli's initial subpoena, delivered to UVA on April 23, 2010, stated that Mann is being investigated under provisions of the Virginia Fraud against Taxpayers Act of 2002, which establishes civil penalties for making fraudulent claims for payment from the state. The "fraudulent claims" in question are applications for state-funded grants which partly supported Mann's work at UVA. The subpoena demanded that the University hand over not only all data and documents created by Mann in connection with his grant-funded research, but also all correspondence between Mann and a long list of his colleagues."

How's about that eh? Unreal!

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: bobad
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 02:20 PM

Validation of scientific research by court as opposed to peer review -- unreal it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 02:24 PM

Surprised?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: gnu
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 02:46 PM

Surprised? YES. INDEED!

Shocked, disgusted, actually "scared" that such crap could go on in the US in the present day... beyond reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 02:47 PM

No surprise. Ignorant lawmakers have been around a long time.
A few cases stand out, one being the Scopes trial in 1925; the state Legislature had passed a bill prohibiting the teaching of evolution in state schools.
Recently we have seen the barring of research money for stem cell research, although this is one of the most important medical breakthroughs ever.

Gene transfer studies are being attacked, and probably will be the next advance brought into legislatures and courts.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 03:45 PM

On the face of it, Global warming findings are not fraud. Nor could any basic research be including para-scientific research on things like ESP and UFO's. It would only be actual fraud if he were claim that by giving him money or other support, a certain goal would be met.

I think the public has a much stronger claim against the GOP when they say that cutting taxes will lower the deficit.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 06:22 PM

I hope the case goes forward. And I hope Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is reprimanded for bringing a frivolous case before the court, sued by Professor Mann for harassment, forced to resign from office, disbarred, forced to reimburse the State of Virginia for the money he wasted on his witch-hunt, and prosecuted by his successor for malicious and unwarranted prosecution. And if he'd catch scabies somewhere along the way, that'd be nice too.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 06:24 PM

Don't hold back, BWL. Say what you REALLY mean!

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 06:30 PM

I also hope that he catches terminal crotch rot and spends his all of his prison time scratching wildly at his crotch.

Fool....

Reminds me of the "legislators" out here who, in this year's session, tried to get a bill passed which would, under the so-called "Exclusion Principle" suggested by Tom Jefferson, prevent Idaho from enforcing federal laws those in charge didn't agree with.

The state Attorney General told them to forget it and yet they persisted. The second time he told them that it could be considered an act of secession and could lead to a declaration of martial law. Fortunately, the fools backed down.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 07:06 PM

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli was a disaster from the 1st day he was in office... along with a governor who is almost as bad.

They are part of the extreme right-wing attempt to neutralize every Democratic law and procedure imaginable... under the guise of religious 'truth'.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 08:37 AM

I thought the Dark Ages were past and gone?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Musket
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 09:58 AM

Before anybody thinks it could only happen in The USA..

Here in The UK a few years ago, McDonalds won a case where people had said that if you eat their food, it will be bad for your health long term. It appears that if you can afford a better legal team, you can prove your food doesn't clog arteries.

Luckily, a few regional directors of public health repeated this in PCT board meetings under qualified privilege, just in case anybody thought court judgements clashed with what we know about fat and cholesterol.

(I have had a quick search on the details, but can't find them. This case did happen, or I should stop eating cheese before going to bed. I don't think I dreamt it?....)

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Stu
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 10:18 AM

The real problem isn't the court case, it's the climate deniers in the media, business etc across the world that are making sure the science isn't being disseminated to the public, who have a right to know after all. The climate scientists aren't blameless in this; there is a real failure on their part to educate the public about climate change and it's consequences and we are now at a very dangerous point in this debate. Considering there is an overwhelming consensus amongst climate scientists that human activity is affecting the climate of the planet, this is a desperate issue.

Science as a whole suffers from this problem, but in the case of climate science I worry the battle is already lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 11:07 AM

The only thing funny about this is that cucinelli means ladybug in Italian...

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 11:42 AM

Mather is largely right on McLibel (google that term) but the case was won on "innuendo" that is to say the meanings attributed to the words of the campaigners that would not have occurred to the normal person but were invented by skilled lawyers. Happily, the campaigners caused enormous harm to MacDonalds and even looney US attorneys are unlikely to be able to get McLipids to enter into any similar arse-kicking contest with another porcupine.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 11:49 AM

Ian, see the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_Case

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 12:47 PM

There was a Horizon programme about this theme some months back. The sceptics (or pillocks) strongly believe that one unsubstatiated hypothesis is enough evidence to counter overwhelming scientific evidence.

To the effect - "My opinion is possible, therefore it must be true and therefore all other evidnece must be false".

Has anyone thought through that in the end it is the wealthy who don't give a f*** if they destroy the planet as it is a problem for later generations, and in their view it would vbe better for a couple of billion p[eople to die than have to change their lifestyle."

Maybe then it is the biilions who are being selfish, how dare they expect to have water or a climate that sustains life if it robs some magnate of a few dollars!

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Musket
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 01:50 PM

Thanks 999. I hadn't put McLibel, yet I suppose that is a logical search term...

I am also aware of a doctor who recently won his case but just about bankrupted him in the meantime by trying to publish a paper examining the benefit or otherwise of chiropractic therapy. Ben Goodman's book "Bad Science" also makes interesting reading regarding the use of the legal world to stifle scientific or indeed academic debate at any level where there is a buck to be turned peddling snake oil.

Stifling real debate on climate issues could, sadly, make these other issues irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Penny S.
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 02:10 PM

They had a "discussion" on LBC 97.3 (a London local radio station) last night on this very subject. Most contributions, apart from a lucid guy from Brussels (it is online as well, so "local" is a bit fuzzy) who knew what he was talking about, were structured along the lines of "I am ignorant about science, but my opinion is that the emails from the University showed that the science was definitely flawed, and that any apparent warming is a very small number and anyway due to sunspots, and my opinion trumps the scientific consensus". They clearly had drawn the information from some common source with an axe to grind.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: grumpy al
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 03:58 PM

Why do so many legislators, who cannot understand or even bother to try to understand scientific findings, adopt a head in the sand policy about everything? The only reasons I can think of are fear and/or blind ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 04:30 PM

Or political opportunism, an inflated self-importance, religious fanaticism, or plain old stupidity.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: grumpy al
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 04:31 PM

well put Greg F. missed those

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Penny S.
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 05:33 PM

New Scientist this week has a piece on spotting the believers in Bullshit - I could post a link, but it would only work if you are already a subscriber. I read hard copy.

It was useful on how to spot the stuff, but I'm still not clear on why people go there.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: pdq
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 06:04 PM

New Scientist is not a genuine science publication.

It is science-oriented tabloid with a definite political agenda.

Real science and math publications are very hard to understand unless you are trained in that field. They also have very limited circulation and cost more to print that they can ever bring in.

By simplifying the product so the average high schooll student can roughly understand what is being said enables several things to happen. Firstly, the publisher can sell millions of copies and make lots of money. Secondly, he can push his political point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 06:19 PM

Ja, mein fuehrer

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 06:51 PM

New Scientist "a tabloid"?   That word must have some other meaning wherever pdq lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: pdq
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 08:02 PM

Tabloid publishing is to journalism what punk (or rotten) wood is to solid timber.

It is not so much a matter of subject (such as sex and drug use among the famous), but a matter of quality.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 09:19 PM

That word must have some other meaning wherever pdq lives.

PeeDee lives in the Land of Delusion. Pay no attention.

(P.S. - talk about having "a definite political agenda.")

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Penny S.
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 06:54 AM

Is there an implication that some of us would not understand proper science journals?

Then again, we can't access the ****** things. Not in public libraries. No longer on paper in university libraries. Behind pay walls. Not cheap, and you don't know wherther the paper is any use until after paying. Not available to alumni of universities, even when they've paid a subscription for library use.

That's you, Elsevier, Wiley and Jstor.

The article, however, did, I suppose have a political bias, since some of the BS attitudes it singled out seemed to be those associated with a right wing agenda. You know, I don't recall seeing a left-wing anti-science idea being peddled around over the years. Odd, that.

If anyone knows any different, I'd be interested to know.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 07:14 AM

As a keen avocational palaeontologist I often run into the problem of finding papers, but there are ways around this:

1) If you have a reference or abstract, contact the author directly. Workers are often very happy to send a copy of their papers.

2) Open-access journals: These are becoming increasingly more popular as an alternative to JStor etc. Authors are realising they need to get their research to a wider audience and are increasingly publishing through these outlets which are mostly online. Check forums and blogs in your chosen subject area, ask for copies of papers or links if necessary.

3) Libraries often keep copies of journals or can get them for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 12:47 PM

The article, however, did, I suppose have a political bias, since some of the BS attitudes it singled out seemed to be those associated with a right wing agenda.

Uh, No.

Bullshit is bullshit, period, and has no political orientation or bias.

Just because a preponderance of right-wingers choose to embrace bullshit doesn't mean that those who don't have a left-wing bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Penny S.
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 06:55 PM

Greg, I was being polite. Or ironic. Or something.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,999
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 11:06 PM

"Just because a preponderance of right-wingers choose to embrace bullshit doesn't mean that those who don't have a left-wing bias."

Beautiful post, Greg. That should be appended to every political thread on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: EBarnacle
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 12:09 AM

Seems to me that cases of this sort go back to Galileo. Even so, it still moves and Climate Change, aka Global Warming is still happening, no matter how much the deniers deny it.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: J-boy
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 01:03 AM

The universe has no regard as to what humans might think is right or wrong. It simply is. And we are all part of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 04:21 AM

The deniers may deny it, and that is their prerogative. Unfortunately the deniers are hell-bent on using their arguments to protect their commercial interests, and if they get their way, once they are proved wrong it will be too late to do anything about it, and it won't be there problem anyway as they will be long dead and gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Midchuck
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 08:36 AM

I never cease to be amused at how much liberals/environmentalists talking about climate change sound like conservatives/religious fundamentalists talking about the literal truth of the Bible, etc.

In each case, you're not only evil if you actually disagree with them, you're evil if you say, "I don't know what the truth is, I'm waiting for you to convince me with hard evidence, rather than yelling about what a miserable sinner I am for failing to accept Truth immediately and without asking any embarrassing questions."

SOMETHING's happening to the climate. But something's always happening to the climate. Can you say "ice age"?

But of course, I'm living 5 or 6 hundred feet above sea level, not in a major city that some idiot decided to build 4 or 5 feet above sea level, so maybe I don't take the matter as seriously as some.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 09:44 AM

Here is a statement taken from the IPCC official website...


The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C.

The global average surface temperature (the average of near surface air temperature over land, and sea surface temperature) has increased since 1861. Over the 20th century the increase has been 0.6 ± 0.2°C5, 6 (Figure 1a). This value is about 0.15°C larger than that estimated by the SAR for the period up to 1994, owing to the relatively high temperatures of the additional years (1995 to 2000) and improved methods of processing the data. These numbers take into account various adjustments, including urban heat island effects. The record shows a great deal of variability; for example, most of the warming occurred during the 20th century, during two periods, 1910 to 1945 and 1976 to 2000.

Globally, it is very likely7 that the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental record, since 1861 (see Figure 1a).

New analyses of proxy data for the Northern Hemisphere indicate that the increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely7 to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years. It is also likely7 that, in the Northern Hemisphere, the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year (Figure 1b). Because less data are available, less is known about annual averages prior to 1,000 years before present and for conditions prevailing in most of the Southern Hemisphere prior to 1861.

On average, between 1950 and 1993, night-time daily minimum air temperatures over land increased by about 0.2°C per decade. This is about twice the rate of increase in daytime daily maximum air temperatures (0.1°C per decade). This has lengthened the freeze-free season in many mid- and high latitude regions. The increase in sea surface temperature over this period is about half that of the mean land surface air temperature.


Note that the maximum-minimum thermometer was not in common use until about 1800, so any temperature "data" before that time is a guess (or worse, a lie).

Also, the warmest period in the century was 1936-42, the hight of the Depression and the slowest industrial output of the period in question.

Not mentioned is that all of the increase is in the minimum temperature. No change in maximum readings at all. This is consistant with the ability of city buildings and roards to store heat and release it night. The weather stations in rural areas at the begining of the century were often in a city 100 years later.

The temperature is always changing to some extent. The 0.6 degrees C is very small compared to most other similar periods of the. It hardly deserves the term "global warming". Actually, "global normalcy" be a more correct term, but that would not put the public in a state of alarm.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 10:16 AM

Nicely cherry-picked, PeeDee.

Please also quote from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) & Kyoto Protocol.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 10:36 AM

From the IPCC's latest report that that pdq must have overlooked:

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007

   * Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

   * Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.

   * Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18).[41]

   * The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.

   * World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
       * Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 centimetres (7.1–23 in) [table 3].
       * There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves, and heavy rainfall.
       * There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones, and extreme high tides.

   * Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.

   * Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 11:38 AM

As I said, above, just because right-wingers embrace bullshit...

well.....

never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: gnu
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 02:04 PM

"... and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years."

Such statements add fuel to the fires of those who do not "believe" in "global warming". 650,000 years? Why would anyone say that? It detracts from and cheapens the analyses.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 02:14 PM

Great point, gnu.

Perhaps bobad will go back and read the entire statement he posted as an exercise in "critical thinking".

The post is essentially "opinion" followed by wild "speculation" in the form of predictions.

* World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century...

That is about as bad as the recent religious prediction that the world will end "next Friday".

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 02:20 PM

Science is not under attack by Cucinelli or any of the other corporate shills who link the culture wars with energy policy. It is our very lives and civilization that is under attack in order to preserve the short term profits of energy companies.




The real issue of science being under attack usually comes from the science community itself. Whenever linear thinging scientists disagree with great thinkers who tend to be right hempispheric thinkers there is always trouble and the threat of isolating the global thinker from the 'Normal' science community.

This is particularly true in genetic science. It turns out a geneticist by the name of LaMark beleived that genes can be changed by enviormental factors in as little as one generation and in rare cases within ones own lifetime. He was laughed out of town and the the term LaMarkian was used to describe nonsensical idiots in scinece.

It turns out Lamark was right, beyond his own expectations.


In short science is not under attack in the American culture war politicians who represent wealthy corporate interests. It is the trillion dollar energy corporations who feel their profits are under attack if people use their own eyes or science to link climate change disasters and energy company practices.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 03:00 PM

I have not closely considered Lamarck since the mid 60s but I do not believe that he associated heritable change with genes since the concept of DNA was then unknown. I am not aware of the theoretical rehabilitation of his views in inherited characteristics.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 03:22 PM

Richard Bridge,
With your background you will certainly enjoy reading and critiquing a book by Lynn McTaggert, THE BOND,

read chapter 2 regarding my ideas about Lamarck.

The book is well worth the $12 and the one minute to download to your Kindle. If in paperback, it is worth $5.99 as well.

I like the book because it is a wellreasoned alternative to the current failing paradigm that is tearing civilization apart despite the opportunities that non linear science and psychology could mend today.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+bond++lynn+Mctaggert&x=18&y=36

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 03:39 PM

The evidence about climate change is abundant and out there easily researched and I'll take the word of most scientists about this issue, thank you very much.

Science has always had an enemy, religion being one, political opportunism, another, greed and corruption (think M.I.C) finally.

This is the history of science, the fear people have of technological breakthroughs,the lack of understanding of the medium, the attempt to replace a empirical method with an ideological one, this is old hat.

There is a new branch of psychology, Evolutionary Psychology which promises to bring more knowledge to the public about the functioning of the brain and how it adapts to new situations.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 03:47 PM

Lamarck did NOT suggest anything like 'genetic' inheritance. He believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. That is, if your father built up his muscles, you could inherit them. (simplistic example, but relevant.)

"Two ideas were incorporated in Lamarck's theory. The first was the theory of use and disuse; the idea that body parts used more often become stronger and larger, while parts not used slowly waste away and disappear. The second idea was the inheritance of acquired characteristics theory, the concept that modifications that occur during an organisms lifetime are passed on to its offspring. His example was the giraffe. He believed that the long neck of the giraffe resulted from the ancestors of giraffes stretching their necks longer and longer while trying to reach the highest branches of the trees."

Lamarck was important because he got so much wrong, and gave us a window to what is NOT relevant. He did many useful things in regard to science & evolution and categorization, but he failed to see the proper connection between evolution and personal behavior.

(I was introduced to Lamarck in my 1st philosophy class in 1957, and he was being used as a bad example even bacvk then.)

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 04:17 PM

pdq-i tend to agree with you,but i wonder if you think the "alarmists"have another agenda for their campaigning[as they accuse the "deniers"of having]or do you think it came from genuine conviction.it seems mostly genuine concern?.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 05:53 PM

GUEST,pete from seven stars link...

...if you can sign-up and send me a PM, I will give you my opinion on that one........I am trying not to mix fact (science) with opinion right now.