Reposted from Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.
Posted on October 26, 2020 by curryja
by Judith Curry
“I’m reaching out to scientists this week about the election. How do you feel about it? Which of the candidates has the best plan, for you, in science and technology?”
The above question was emailed to me today by a reporter.
My response:
I am not happy with either the Democratic or Republican plans for science in the U.S. Both sides seem to want to use and misuse science as a club to further their political agendas. The Republicans seem to prefer to ignore science, while the Democrats cherry pick science to further their political agendas.
Here is the long response,some text from something that I’m working on:
Dutch regulatory lawyer Lucas Bergkamp summarizes the challenge in this way. Science has become an instrument used by politicians and agencies to arm themselves with powerful arguments in complex value-laden debates. Scientists have let the politicians hijack the scientific enterprise. Both policy makers and scientists exploit scientific uncertainty to avoid debate on the relation between science and politics, facts and values. Armed with science, politicians are able to avoid accountability for decisions. Serious debate is avoided because politicized science has purged doubt and skepticism. Activist climate science makes use of a series of strategies and tactics to influence public opinion and politics. Bergkamp concludes that climate science itself has come under siege.
Scientization of policy is a response to intractable political conflicts that transforms the political issues into scientific ones. The rationale for scientization is the belief that science can act as a neutral arbiter of policy — if we could only determine the facts of a matter, the appropriate course of action would become clear. The problem is that science is neither neutral nor capable of answering political questions. The answers that science gives depend on what questions are asked, which inevitably involves value judgments. Science is not designed to answer questions about how the world ought to be, which is the work of politics.
Policy makers are culpable in the misuse of science for policy making by:
- regarding science as a vehicle to avoid ‘hot potato’ policy issues
- expecting black-and-white answers to complex problems
- demanding scientific arguments for their desired policies
- using scientific facts as a substitute for matters of public concern.
Scientists are culpable in the misuse of science for policy making by:
- naivete about expecting scientific evidence to drive policy
- conflating evidence with expert judgment
- playing power politics with their expertise
- combining expert knowledge with values that entangle disputed facts with identity-defining group commitments.
In political debates, ‘I believe in science’ is a statement generally made by people who don’t understand much about it. They use such statements about science as a way of declaring belief in scientific proposition that is outside their knowledge and understanding. The belief of such individuals in climate change is often more akin to believing in Santa Claus than relating to actual understanding of science.
In the context of the climate change, ‘I believe in science’ uses the overall reputation of science to give authority to the climate change ‘consensus’, shielding it from questioning and skepticism. ‘I believe in science’ is a signifier of social group identity that supports massive government legislation to limit or ban fossil fuels. ‘Belief in science’ makes it appear that disagreement on this solution is equivalent to a rejection of the scientific method and worldview. When exposed to science that challenges their political biases, these same ‘believers’ are quick to claim ‘pseudo-science,’ without considering (or even understanding) the actual evidence or arguments.
On the other side of the climate debate, calls for ‘sound science’ are made that weaponize uncertainty and rigor to make it more difficult to use science in regulatory decision making. Individuals promoting ‘sound science’ work to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. The ‘sound science’ tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: science does not produce absolute certainty but is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence.
Encroachment of values into science is unavoidable. Problems arise when:
- Driven by external pressures or for their own political purposes, scientists ignore data and research paths that would make their political point weaker or undermine their ideological perspective.
- Politicians interfere with the activities of science
- Narrow framing of the scientific problem by policy makers, whereby government funding draws the efforts of scientists towards a narrow range of projects that supports preferred policies.
- Politicians, advocacy groups, journalists and even scientists attempt to intimidate or otherwise silence scientists whose research is judged to interfere with their policy preferences.
The war on science is being fought on two fronts: politicians ignoring science; and using bad science to justify a political agenda.
In 2005, science journalist Chris Mooney published a best-selling book, The Republican War on Science, which examines the politics of science policy in the U.S. The book focuses on the behavior of the U.S. Republican party, particularly the administration of President George W. Bush. The book argues that the Bush administration regularly distorted and/or suppressed scientific research to further its own political aims.
Science journalist John Tierney provides a different perspective from Mooney’s, again with reference to U.S. politics. He correctly states that both sides cherry-pick research and misrepresent evidence to support their agendas, and that stupidity and dishonesty are bipartisan. He also argues that Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science, asking “where are the victims?”
Tierney regards the real dangers to science to come from the political Left. The first threat from the Left is confirmation bias, since academics have traditionally leaned left politically. The second threat from the Left is its long tradition of mixing science and politics. Leftists have much more confidence in experts and the state, leading to temptations to politicize science. By contrast, Conservatives are concerned by what Friedrich Hayek called the ‘fatal conceit:’ the delusion that experts are wise enough to redesign society. Conservatives distrust central planners, preferring to protect individuals’ natural rights.
“The Republicans seem to prefer to ignore science, while the Democrats cherry pick science to further their political agendas.”
Got to this point. No point reading any further.
Democrats start by using fake science. Republicans rightly ignore fake science.
Well, in so far as Republicans, like all good thinking people, are pragmatists, they not form policy based on what scientists say.
And this is right. Scientists are notorious for not getting it right.
And even if science is right, let it mature, let it go through the mill, let it work itself out over time, then use it as policy. Once it has been thoroughly proved.
Science is all over the place, it always is, to base policy on that is foolish in the extreme.
Ignore all science. Wait till it becomes engineering. Technology. Then it is proved valuable.
I trust engineers a lot more than “science.”
A perfect example was the fight over the funding of research using fetal stem cells.
The right had moral problems with this research.
The left declared that the right was opposed to science.
Yes, the left is upside down. Chuck Schumer says that ACB’s confirmation means that future generations of unborn will suffer.
Michigan’s governor says that abortion is life sustaining.
The problem with fetal stem cells is that anything they fix will require lifelong anti rejection medication.
Putting the funding into adult stem cell research would allow the use of your own cells to create the cures from, which then do not require that disability, and it is a disability.
The Democrats might like making people dependent on additional drugs, it gives them power over those people.
in the long run fetal stem cell research is valuable to ferret out the best ways to produce active stem cells and the general effects of stem cells and how they interact in the immune system.
Using an individual’s own stem cells to produce individualized treatments has a long term use in that it hopefully causes less side effects and may be a permanent cure. On the other hand, it is still extremely expensive to produce small quantities of of individual stem cells for a single person.
A bit like buying a hand-engraved, custom designed and built individualized shotgun and only using it once in a tournament.
Very expensive for what you get.
Eventually the goal is to understand immune system function well enough to produce stem cells that adapt to the subject, not requiring the subject to adapt to a generic line of stem cells. An adaptive stem cell line would be similar to a generic drug- originally it was “patented” but finally comes off patent and is simpler and more generic to support wider sales.
A personal note: I have an autoimmune disease. The doctors wanted to try several “biologic” drugs. They pushed me to spend some $20,000 on two different drugs that didn’t help at all. The next step was a $6000/dose via in-hospital infusion with barely a 50% chance of success(per clinical trials).
I said no because conventional therapies, while not curing the disease, had established long term useful results. The pharmaceutical company essentially wanted me to pay for their research.
Problems like this can not be solved with “government” money. Researchers need to be support for long-term research in a non political way.
Fat Chance!
If there is no empirical evidence supporting the premise that human caused CO2 has a significant effect on Climate Change, how can it be a scientific fact? If this premise is solely supported, as it seems to be, by consensus, correlation and computer models, how can it be considered “based on science”? Is it possible that other motives and agendas are at play? Could it be that it is not a scientific issue after all. A good friend
told me that if we wanted to know the truth “we must follow the money.” I think he is right!
Just a thought by a country boy who has lived with climate change for over 85 years.
“If there is no empirical evidence supporting the premise that human caused CO2 has a significant effect on Climate Change, how can it be a scientific fact?”
It’s not a scientific fact. The alarmists just pretend they have the facts. When alarmists are asked to provide such facts, they can’t do it.
Alarmists do try to fool people by being fast and loose with the facts, but they can’t do that at a place like WUWT because skeptics will tear apart the arguments of the alarmists.
The alarmists are good at confusing the issue, but what they claim doesn’t hold up when looked at in detail.
Any and all alarmists are invited to prove this wrong. Don’t worry, the alarmists won’t make a peep. They know they don’t have a leg to stand on, so they will remain silent when someone on WUWT asks them to prove their claims. This time will be no different.
Me too.
“..The Republicans seem to prefer to ignore science, while the Democrats cherry pick science to further their political agendas…”
I recall what Napoleon is supposed to have said according to legend: “When you see your enemy making a mistake, don’t interrupt him.”
Are the Democrats making a mistake with the faulty climate alarmist and wind and solar energy narratives, or are they making very useful offensive political weapons out of them? I suggest that it is the latter, and Trump and the Republicans are the ones making a mistake by not realizing this. The Democrats are doing well by not interrupting them.
With support for their faulty narratives from the mass media and the scientific and academic communities, the climate alarmist and green energy activists will be in the driver’s seat if the Dems get control of the White House and both Houses of Congress next month.
While it may be uncertain just how far Biden and the Democrats will go in response to the narratives, Trump and the Republicans seem yet to realize the potential for the amount of damage that could be done here if the worst comes to pass (or anything close to it).
If all of this is perceived as a good vs. evil situation, it reminds me of a wise old saying: “All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.” If Trump and the Republicans see little of interest to them here with the science behind climate alarmism and renewables, we all may all yet see the day when we will seriously regret it.
CD
From my armchair here in Melbourne Australia, it is my observation that trump is not ignoring climate change, he just has so many other more important things to deal with.
Wazoo from Australia
You are hereby banned from the internet for the next week for making too much sense with your comment, with very few words too. The internet was designed for bitter arguments among strangers, using monikers, who know next to nothing about the subject in question. You, however, gave us the obvious correct answer, and that leaves nothing for us to say, other than giving YOU a hard time. The internet requires less “observation” and more flying off the handle, and jumping to conclusions. You can think about that during your time out in the next week.
What can I say … an Aussie ! 😉
Given the hell that Melbournites have faced over the past few months courtesy of Dictatot Dan, Waza’s BS antennae are well tuned in.
“With support for their faulty narratives from the mass media and the scientific and academic communities…”
Helicobacter pylori aside, maybe the scientific community have it right. Maybe an abrupt 3 or 4 degrees increase (that is what the science predicts) is not going to be good for a complex, interdependant civilisation. Even if you think the chances of that are low, the risk is real and the odds are not that good to be betting the house on.
Nice dead thread banging, nitwit, though it allows you to post your drivel unmolested.
I see Loydo still can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
Lloydo,
“That is what the science predicts” you write.
Wrong.
There is no entity named “the science”.
There are scientists who make diverse predictions, despite the dangers of guessing.
People choose the work of one scientist over another, often because it suits their own thoughts, even if (mstly) people are unable to nderstand the science. Geoff S
Maybe the sky will fall, loydo. There is no scientific way to cove “maybe”, there always are maybes.
Scientists, still but but with only a small majority, try to turn maybe’s into yeses or noes. Politicians use them to get relected. Generally the specific maybe makes know difference if they get re-elected.
As the engineers here pointed out to you, when it becomes “technology” and we use it everyday it becomes true science.
Eveything in the news about climate is simply a Feinman “conjecture”- yet to be tested.
EXCUSE ME! First 3 to 4 is not going to happen. Even if it does it would be good for humans. Only useful idiots think other wise.
Before the government decided to commit billions of dollars funding research focused on human influence, climate research was more holistic and objective in understanding all influencing variables. Now, it is no longer a scientific issue but a political one. It’s obvious that the left is exploiting the resulting pseudo science to further their agenda. The climate change dogma has become so indoctrinated in all the government agencies and various segments of society that it is almost impossible to separate fact from fiction. Even for those who may know the difference it seems most find it easier and safer to virtue signal and hope that the truth may eventually prevail.
astonerii
+100
“The Republicans seem to prefer to ignore science, while the Democrats cherry pick science to further their political agendas.”
Find the qualifiers in her statement. She has been our best ally.
The Republicans seem to prefer to ignore science
Evidence, please?
being skeptical != ignoring
Science journalist John Tierney provides a different perspective from Mooney’s, again with reference to U.S. politics. He correctly states that both sides cherry-pick research and misrepresent evidence to support their agendas, and that stupidity and dishonesty are bipartisan. He also argues that Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science, asking “where are the victims?”
MY COMMENT: Tierney is ~being falsely and speciously “bipartisan” in the above paragraph and is 98% wrong. The dishonesty is overwhelmingly in the leftist cabal.
Tierney regards the real dangers to science to come from the political Left. The first threat from the Left is confirmation bias, since academics have traditionally leaned left politically. The second threat from the Left is its long tradition of mixing science and politics. Leftists have much more confidence in experts and the state, leading to temptations to politicize science. By contrast, Conservatives are concerned by what Friedrich Hayek called the ‘fatal conceit:’ the delusion that experts are wise enough to redesign society. Conservatives distrust central planners, preferring to protect individuals’ natural rights.
MY COMMENT: I agree with Tierney above – leftists have shown no competence to operate societies humanely or competently – they have shown one outstanding talent – which is to abuse and murder their own citizens, by the hundreds of millions. Modern leftist waive away these ~200 million tortured and murdered souls of the 20th Century and say “Trust us, it will all be different this time!” No, it won’t! The same failures that gave rise to Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and all the other Tin Pots of Europe, Asia, Africa and South America are still with us, and will rise again given the chance. The other outstanding talent of the left is to lie – Lenin, Goebbels, Mao and their disciples made a science of deceit, and their lies live on today in the Alinsky tactics of the modern left. The CAGW scam, the full-Gulag Covid-19 lockdown scam, the riots of BLM and Antifa all are false – echoes of the Big Lies of the leftist 20th Century – false scares concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep.
Do we have to do this all again?
I can only pray we won’t. It’s too late to seriously affect the election unless Joe Biden literally “goes off the rails” in an extended public appearance. He’s been coming close, but nothing dramatic enough to break through.
Pluggs is not ahead in anything, the leftist riot squads are already planning to Burn Loot Murder on Nov 4 because they know they are losing. What you want to bet there will be ANOTHER black man killed by police on, say, next Tuesday, well staged as the one in Philthydelphia just was? Perhaps several more across the country, plunge everything into pre-coordinated chaos, all on the same day? Social media is helping to coordinate all this leftist insanity, has been all along. Going to be a sea-change come Nov 4. Left ain’t going to like what is coming.
I think she’s almost right. Republicans and Democrats both use science when it supports what they wanted to do anyway and both ignore the science when it doesn’t. The difference is that the Democrats shout just as loud about science when they are ignoring it as when they are embracing it, whereas the Republicans do not.
My stance is science should inform policy, it should not make policy, because policy is about human preferences and values, which are not scientific questions. Not only do scientists not have expertise in those fields, but because of the unique requirements of specialists, they are actually less expert than the average person.
Yeah, pretty much the same here. What is this ‘science’ of which she speaks? I want some for my coffee table. I’m sure it will impress visitors.
I partly agree. Our scientific community have lost their credibility and need to start applying sound scientific principles and instead of “peer review” have real scientific review of methodology, bias, assumptions, quality of data etc. Politicians should not trust science at this time.
If there is no empirical evidence supporting the premise that human caused CO2 has a significant effect on climate change, how can it be a scientific fact that it is? If the premise is solely supported, as it seems to be, by consensus, correlation and computer models, how can “climate change” be considered “based on science”? Is it possible that other motives and agendas are at play? Could it be that it is not a scientific issue after all. A good friend told me that if we wanted to know the truth “we must follow the money.” I think he is right!
Just a thought by a country boy who has lived with climate change for over 85 years.
Feynman described science, its uses, misuses and abuses in 1966:
http://www.feynman.com/science/what-is-science/
“When someone says “Science teaches such and such”, he is using the word incorrectly…
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.“
Great link, thanks very much John.
Most welcome. Famous speech, including the Cargo Cult analogy.
I am both a conservative/libertarian, and applied scientist (engineer). I find the argument that conservatives ignore science to be very untrue. We just don’t accede to an authority with known biases, and agenda. Whenever I hear someone tell me that “99%” of scientists agree with AGW, it just shows that the person/organization knows nothing about science. I have no issue with skepticism founded in asking for the standard ability to test a theory by falsification. Yet, many times to even suggest that simple of a test leads to labels of being a denier, unbeliever of science, etc. You believe in the tooth fairy, science must have tests to show validity.
Unfortunately, today science is a tool of politics, and the funding for science is political as well. This bias has been in place for a long time, and it will not change any time soon. So yes, whenever I see any study reported by CNN, ABC, CBS, NYT, etc, my first reaction is to go to the source and read it for myself. It is too bad the the information institutions within our society have placed us in this position to trust no one.
Lack of trust, ie skepticism, is essential to science. Least of all should anyone ever trust any government.
Quoting from Feynman 1966 more fully:
We have many studies in teaching, for example, in which people make observations,
make lists, do statistics, and so on, but these do not thereby become established science,
established knowledge. They are merely an imitative form of science analogous to the
South Sea Islanders’ airfields–radio towers, etc., made out of wood. The islanders expect
a great airplane to arrive. They even build wooden airplanes of the same shape as they see
in the foreigners’ airfields around them, but strangely enough, their wood planes do not
fly. The result of this pseudoscientific imitation is to produce experts, which many of you are. [But] you teachers, who are really teaching children at the bottom of the heap, can
maybe doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way:
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
When someone says, “Science teaches such and such,” he is using the word incorrectly.
Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, “Science has
shown such and such,” you might ask, “How does science show it? How did the scientists
find out? How? What? Where?”
It should not be “science has shown” but “this experiment, this effect, has shown.”
And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments–but be
patient and listen to all the evidence–to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been
arrived at.
In a field which is so complicated [as education] that true science is not yet able to get
anywhere, we have to rely on a kind of old-fashioned wisdom, a kind of definite
straightforwardness. I am trying to inspire the teacher at the bottom to have some hope
and some self-confidence in common sense and natural intelligence. The experts who are
leading you may be wrong.
I have probably ruined the system, and the students that are coming into Caltech no
longer will be any good. I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the
buffeting of communications and television–words, books, and so on–are
unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the
name of science.
We could really use Feynman right now, but it’s probably a mercy he didn’t live to see the mess that “science” has become.
True, but his sister is a solar scientist, so in the midst of the mess.
Meanwhile the taxpayer funded data systems tick along….
The other aspect of what brand of science to cite as correct is that the President (for example) has many different responsibilities. For instance, Dr. Fauci says quarantine, contact trace, wear masks, wash your hands, etc, and President Trump says reopen food distribution and critical industries and maintain combat effectiveness against a threat from China and advance monetary assistance to a broad spectrum of Americans, both individuals and corporate entities, etc. The President must multi-task, whereas many scientists need only narrowly focus on their expertise. Then along comes the ramp-up to a very important election and all bets are off. Strategies become designed to win elections, and the mix of science and broad spectrum multi-tasking becomes even more complicated. I watched a segement on CNN this morning where they interviewed an “expert” who stunned the CNN interviewer by saying quarantines that reduce the economic effectiveness below the threshhold for survival are not advised. Multi-task, anyone?
There are no experts in general on epidemiology, only specialists, as shown by Fauci’s frequent flip-flops. This is especially true for a novel virus from a nation whose Communist leadership wouldn’t permit in foreign specialists to study.
Tyrannical governors can pick and choose from among the opinions of different epidemiologists whom they deem “scientific experts”, while ignoring those with whose conclusions they disagree. The mainstream and social media weill then enforce these politically motivated choices.
Thus the value of the 50 state laboratories operating with a common framework (i.e. republican form of government), but varying in their individual perturbations. Perhaps we will learn something through practice and observation that was otherwise unpredictable, mischaracterized, or contested.
The media will fight tooth and claw against any lessons disrupting the totalitarian narrative.
Even NYC hospitals at the height of the contagion weren’t overwhelmed, so lockdown was justified in no jurisdiction. Also, NYC wouldn’t have been so hard hit had Cuomo not sent infectious patients into nursing homes and de Blasio not neglected to disinfect subways and buses, while encouraging people to ride them and congregate in tight throngs and indoors during Lunar New Year.
But, yes, the labs of democracy showed that the best Rx was protecting the vulnerable without shutting down normal life.
“tight throngs”
Good thing you didn’t misspell that. 🙂
Jeff … thanks for my best giggle of the morning!!
Dr. Fauci always follows science: he determines what science is.
Dr. FauXi has a lot for which to answer.
Dr. Fauci started the whole thing off wrong when he said masks were not needed for the general population.
He said this not because masks are not needed, but because there was a shortage of masks and he didn’t want people depleting what supplies we had.
So he starts out with a lie. This is not conducive to the proper administration of a pandemic. Losing the trust of the people should be avoided at all costs.
That didn’t happen this time and now there is great distrust of our leaders in a time of crisis. The distrust is deserved.
One partial solution to the politization of science is to pre-publish your data collection methods and analysis methods BEFORE you start your project.
This (hopefully) eliminates p-hacking and other twisting of the data that is then used to support the researcher’s preferred narrative.
Negative results relative to your hypothesis should always be published. Only researchers that aren’t “true” scientists believe the opposite.
This is done. A lot.
This is what we do in grant review. With “extramural” research / investigator-initiated proposals.
Some part of the govt – NIH – receives a chunk of money annually to fund research. Those outside of the NIH – “extramural” researchers – usually academics in a university – submit proposals, asking to get funded.
The grant review team assembles maybe 3 times a year. They have pre-reviewed the proposals. Each is assigned a few for which to take the lead and do an initial review.
In the review mtg, proposals are reviewed, one by one, by the phalanx of experts. The experts judge the value of the study, relative to the others that could be funded. They judge the methods and approach. They judge the degree that the study is ethical.
If the proposer does not clearly state methodology, he or she will not get reviewed well. Proposer has to note where / how they will get data / get sample etc. What will be done with the data: principal components analysis, etc. Nowadays, proposers even need to have a “dissemination plan.”
Often, the proposed study needs to have a “power analysis.” This is kind of a backwards-engineering of the study in which you assume the degree of effect or of difference between this and that which would be useful or meaningful, and you calculate the sample size necessary to detect that effect, if it is the true relation.
If the review committee cannot perceive how the study will be carried out, step by step. he or she will fail to get funded, even if the idea is great.
So, yes, for much of the science done, all methods ARE clearly pre-planned.
As far as publication of negative results:
This is an area where our prevailing social structures and customs for advancing knowledge are not adequate. Largely, we depend on peer-reviewed journals, who are supported by academic-library subscriptions. Each journal receives more manuscripts than it can fit in its pages, and it reviews these and decides which are worth review, and then which are worth publishing.
They have no desire to publish if the researcher has already posted a report on ResearchGate. Why? It is already out there.
Count of Monte Cristo, and Don Quixote were published as serials, chapter by chapter, to sustain sales.
Tour de France was established to sell a sports newspaper.
If you could just go get the entire thing at once, for free, then why buy month by month?
This subscription-model of science dissemination is noted as weak. So, we now have “open-access.” Yes, the journal will publish your article, if you pay $2,000.
So, if you want more open dissemination of negative results, go find a researcher with a negative result to publish, and give him or her $2,000.
If a researcher decides to merely broadcast a report – say, post it on a web page – it does not get much attention.
There are models of how to disseminate study findings, whether positive or negative, outside of the academic-library-subscription-peer-reviewed-journal model, but we are not there yet.
“The Republicans seem to prefer to ignore science”. Agenda much?
Dr. Curry wrote an opinion piece… and is entitled to her opinion. As a BS/MS Metallurgical Engineer with +30 years of hard science R&D, I’m a living refutation of her baseless assertion.
A lot of people believe that “fairness” requires them to criticize both sides, even if it requires them to make up something to criticize.
They most often feel this way, when the side they are criticizing is their own.
I enjoy reading an article as such that discusses the current divide without name calling, even if I don’t agree with everything said. This is the type of civil debate that should be happening rather than the insult laden discourse now prevalent.
This is nothing new though and President Eisenhower warned of the corruption of science many years ago in some very wise words.
My take on this however remains that the “left’ is pushing with great vigour and little conscience a “communistic” utopian nightmare that the political right has to firefight with equal vigour lest all freedoms be lost and we return to the dark ages despite all our technological advances.
Feynman, Orwell and Eisenhower among many other bright minds saw this coming many many years ago. Yet here we are.
I see no trace of a solution here, so here is mine.
Let’s try to be honest about what is desired- meaning the NWO proponents, as all most right leaning people want is the rights as nicely summed up in the American Constitution.
There are many out there who desire to remake the world into totalitarian state- that is abundantly clear and they are being deceitful about it and attempting to achieve this end by virtually any means.
If such a state is the desire of some, be honest and say it and let the chips fall where they may.
Having said that the young must be educated on the history of totalitarian states which is bleak to say the least except for the very few elites.
On the other side there are rational arguments to be made that simply letting people (corporately) succumb to their greed over the common good is not acceptable.
Excellent comment
Nice summary, Al Miller.
What we are facing now is not climate change, but the purposeful takeover of Marxist/Socialist/Fascist ideas on social organization, instead of the Constitution.
As for socialistic ideas, many politicians don’t care about the form. They are all equally destructive and destructive change is an opportunity for monopoly power.
It’s taken some 70 years and unfortunately I don’t expect the process to be overturned before I die.
I’ll go with ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ instead of ‘Democrat’ and ‘Republican’. Back when I was actually doing science, in the Sixties and Seventies, the divisions were not nearly as stark as they are today. And whatever you think about the attitudes of Left and Right towards science, there is one truism: the Right gets worked up about specific situations, while the Left gets worked up about everything. I’ve found it’s a lot easier to live calmly surrounded by rightists than leftists.
Judy has it, as usual. Such wisdom in a woman so young is extraordinary!
(waves at my old friend, well ‘young’ friend).
============
What carbon-based life form declared Carbon-Dioxide a pollutant? It just goes downhill from there.
Liberalism is divergent. Progressivism is monotonic. Conservativism is moderating.
Liberals tend to operate in a particular universal frame of reference. Progressives tend to conflate logical domains. Conservatives tend to be practical and rational. Of course, none of these ideologies are intrinsically qualified. Principles matter.
Everyone has a faith (i.e. trust domain). Everyone has a religion (i.e. behavioral protocol). Everyone has an ideology that realizes their faith and religion, and guides their lives.
Science is, with cause, a near-frame philosophy and practice.
“Scientists are culpable in the misuse of science for policy making by:
– naivete about expecting scientific evidence to drive policy
– conflating evidence with expert judgment
– playing power politics with their expertise
– combining expert knowledge with values that entangle disputed facts with identity-defining group
commitments. ”
Er… no, I don’t think they are culpable. And we’re not really talking about ‘science’ here. We’re talking about jobs. People’s careers. The work they do to afford to eat, drive a car, buy a house and raise a family.
If my life and my families’ lives depended on my being paid to study the sex life of whelks, then you would find me playing power politics and exaggerating the importance of my research all the time, in order to get the money to live. I can’t blame scientists for doing that. It is an inevitable result of employing scientists on the government payroll and then paying them by results.
Ever since WW2 we have corrupted science by , as Eisenhower said, ‘substituting a government pay check for curiosity’ . Scientists are not driven by curiosity any more, and that’s why they provide the answers that the highest bidders want….
+42 :<)
“sex life of whelks”
Here we see two limpets locked in a life or death struggle for territory. The huge bull limpet, enraged by the rock, endeavours to encircle its sprightly opponent.
Science is a word that quickly takes us to Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word…it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less. But it is a prestigious word that is irresistible to thinkers of all disciplines. Thus Proudhon appropriates it in 1840, creating the phrase scientific socialism. This phrase is then picked up and propagated by Engels and Marxists generally. Hard to see how any of this school of thought has ever had anything to do with empirical investigation.
Our near neighbor Mexico had an extended period near the end of the 19th century during which government policy was dominated by the prestige of the cientificos. They were probably closer to what we understand by scientists, as it was an era of national development. The cientificos could claim to understand the real world and engineer important industrial projects based on their expertise. Unfortunately they were used by the corrupt regime of dictator Porfirio Diaz. I don’t know how the chaos that followed the collapse of that regime has affected the national view of science in Mexico.
I now hold my breath waiting for the phrase ‘post normal’ to pop up in this conversation. : > )
So republicans ignore science! What a strange statement. Taken at face value, the statement implies that republican decision making proceeds without scientific input. I have a hard time reconciling that belief with Trumps new Space Corps as just one example. Does Judith believe that the Science Corps was designed without science. I wish she would have given examples. Take climate. Reliance on unverified computer models is about as far from science as you can get. Its not cherry picking, its throwing the scientific method out the window.
Conservatives ignoring “science” merely is code talk for “they don’t believe in Macro Evolution.” This “science” trope is code-talk for “I am of the Virtue Cult, and if you disagree with me, you are un-Virtuous, and therefore I don’t have to pay attention to anything you say, no matter how factual or reasonable.” This insulates “Liberals” from examination of their ideas and policies.
Despite the fact that a super strong case can be made that life begins at conception, and despite the fact that 97% of scientists believe life begins at conception,
Biologists’ Consensus on ‘When Life Begins.’ Steven Andrew Jacobs. SSRN, posted: 6 Aug 2018.
“Many Americans disagree on ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ because the question is subject to interpretive ambiguity arising from Hume’s is-ought problem. There are two distinct interpretations of the question: descriptive (i.e., ‘When is a fetus classified as a human?’) and normative (i.e., ‘When ought a fetus be worthy of ethical and legal consideration?’). To determine if one view is more prevalent today, 2,899 American adults were surveyed and asked to select the group most qualified to answer the question of when a human’s life begins. The majority selected biologists (81%), which suggested Americans primarily hold a descriptive view. Indeed, the majority justified their selection by describing biologists as objective scientists that can use their biological expertise to determine when a human’s life begins. Academic biologists were recruited to participate in a study on their descriptive view of when life begins. A sample of 5,502 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions assessed statements representing the biological view ‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’. This view was used because previous polls and surveys suggest many Americans and medical experts hold this view. Each of the three statements representing that view was affirmed by a consensus of biologists (75-91%). The participants were separated into 60 groups and each statement was affirmed by a consensus of each group, including biologists that identified as very pro-choice (69-90%), very pro-life (92-97%), very liberal (70-91%), very conservative (94-96%), strong Democrats (74-91%), and strong Republicans (89-94%). Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human’s life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502).”
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703
The mag Nature whose primary readership is academics conducted a poll of 900 readers on the election. 86% were for Biden
Mike
Surely no one is for Biden.
But they may be for not-Trump.
In the end, what Republicans do with science is to garner support while allowing freedom of choice. What democrats do with science is use it to impose their will on the masses.
And anything written by Chris Mooney isn’t worth lining a bird cage, for fear of misinforming the bird.
She’s got that right.
The Marxists tried central planning and it has failed disastrously every time it’s been tried. I’m beginning to see the bones of a mathematical proof for why that should be the case.
I guarantee you that even if you present such a mathematical proof, the dedicated Marxists will ignore it.
Mortal gods notwithstanding, the failures stem from a propagation of errors, not the least of which is diversity (i.e. color/class judgments). That said, the optimal means to develop an adaptive system is following a fitness function and adjusting with feedback through perturbations that mitigate catastrophic change/divergence. As for Conservatives… American Conservatives, it’s in the national charter: Declaration of Independence, and organization as a Republican form of government under a constitutional framework, less the Twilight Amendment (i.e. penumbras and emanations).
The feedback often manifests itself as the failure of a business in a competitive environment. In central planning it is anathema to have several factories competing for the same market.
Central planning produces a lack of motivation and a lack of feedback. With those constraints, I am amazed that the Soviet Union did as well as it did for as long as it did. When you think about it, the Soviet Union didn’t last that long, less than one human lifetime.
“Both sides seem to want to use and misuse science as a club to further their political agendas.”
“The Republicans seem to prefer to ignore science”
Can something being ignored be used as a club at the same time?
Andrew
I don’t recall Republicans ever using “science” as a club.
Anyone have any examples of such behavior?
Separation of state and church – including the church of climate change.
The Progressive Church under ostensibly secular public, corporate, and traditional sects.
“The Republicans seem to prefer to ignore science, while the Democrats cherry pick science to further their political agendas.”
IMHO it’s not ignorance.
I would say that some do not use science to further their political agenda while others do.
Conservatives applaud valid science. Liberals try to hijack it in the most antiscientific possible ways. They want it to replace the authority of the ancients and Church which it overthrew. Science is anti-authority, anti-expert and pro-observed reality.
I’m upset that most scientists in the 21st century are geothermal deniers. Way to go science!
“The Republicans seem to prefer to ignore science”
If that were true, Republicans would be like the Amish refusing to drive cars or use modern technology. That just isn’t the case. It would be more accurate to say that Republicans ignore immature, unproven science until it has matured and its conclusions can be reproduced. That is called being responsible and sensible. Following the latest fad in science before it has been demonstrated to be correct is what Democrats do and is foolishness.
Republicans also reject certain avenues of research as being immoral.
As such, it’s a question of morality, not science.
Having a sense of morality that differs from those on the left, does not make one against science.
If someone were to propose picking up Dr. Mengele’s work, were he left off, would the left accuse anyone who objected of being “against science”?
Picking up Mengele’s work –
You say this as if it were a hypothetical.
Forced sterilization is barely beginning to register on the list of currently or recently practiced atrocities. Selling aborted baby parts for money is not yet on the list.
“Selling aborted baby parts for money is not yet on the list.” And yet Planned Parenthood does exactly that, in direct contravention of laws, state and fed. Funny how selling the parts of dead black and brown babies does not bother the Democrat Party or its minions in the least. Apparently Black/Brown lives only matter when they are ended and the pieces sold at a tidy profit.
Back to the original question.
“I’m reaching out to scientists this week about the election. How do you feel about it? Which of the candidates has the best plan, for you, in science and technology?”
Judith Curry has previously discussed BOhr, Pasteur and Edison quadrants.
Trump clearly wants America to become an industrial powerhouse again so Pasteur and Edison will come naturally. Maybe Bohr science will miss out.
If Democrats win ( I don’t mean Biden) the fourth science quadrant will prosper.
“The Republicans seem to prefer to ignore science, while the Democrats cherry pick science to further their political agendas.”
Talk about having an outright bias… This is a “talking point” instead of a factual statement. Shame on the author repeating it.
Neither party seems to have ANY grasp on complex scientific subjects, and both parties seem to cherry pick their arguments…this is OK because they are practicing POLITICS, not science. Unfortunately most people seem to be unable to tell the difference – this is a failing of education.
What is not OK is that so many people claiming to be scientists are NOT practicing anything that resembles science in reaching their conclusions. Also, so many people (claiming to be scientists or not) are claiming some form of “truth” based entirely on emotional appeal instead of a steady building up a conclusion based on facts, recognizing that not all facts agree with their argument and also not all facts are correct – some are demonstrated as falsehoods over time.
I really wish scientists would stop trying to be activists – you CANNOT do both. Once you become an activist you lose your objectivity and become a politician – nothing more. That is not to say a scientist cannot have an opinion, but it should be carefully couched in the realization that a scientifically informed opinion will change with the facts. There is no “truth”, just theories were the confidence builds as the theory is tested and survives intact.
The Democrats like to cloth themselves in scientific righteousness – that is they make false claims about “science being on their side”. Science doesn’t have a side, it’s a process to reach understandings that are more likely to represent natural phenomenon. It’s too bad that more people do not have enough science education to even understand this point.
When voting, one should ignore the hyperbole and focus on just the policies – politicians cannot hide their voting records. It does not matter if you “like” the candidate, only the policies make any real difference.
I will say this for President Trump (this is not an endorsement), he has attempted to deliver more of his promises than any president I can remember…whether for good or bad he at least does as he says. I can’t say the same about any other democrat or republican.
“clothe” not “cloth”
Otherwise, good comment.
If Mooney’s book is the only evidence that you can provide to support your contention that Republicans ignore science, then you’ve got nothing.
The book was your standard left wing boiler plate that claims that anytime the a Republican disagrees with a left wing scientist, that it’s the Republican that is wrong.
Things like not funding the research into fetal stem cells. The left totally ignores the rights moral concerns and just declares that anyone who doesn’t support them is “ignoring” science.
As I told my liberal friends in the 1990s and 2000s, fetal stem cells were not where the future lay anyway. Getting adults’ own cells to grow into different tissue was the Holy Grail.
Adult stem cells are also where all the progress has been made. Nobody’s been able to figure out a way to control fetal stem cells.
Beyond that, Bush never banned research into fetal stem cells, that was also just another lie the left told.
Bush banned federal dollars towards the development of NEW fetal stem cell lines.
Lines that existed at the time of the ban could still be funded.
State and private spending was never touched.
Yup.
Another fake issue.
My Question is, “ what science are Republicans ignoring?” Republicans as far as I can tell are pro nuclear, pro fossil fuel, pro hydro, pro anything that science says works.
Solar panels and wind turbines work also, they’re just not yet practical for reliable, grid-scale power.
Jeff,
What has to be improved with wind and solar?
Lnger windmill blades, better conversion sulght to electricity?
How do ‘mprove’ the vast areas of land that are prjected as required?
Geoff S
Regardless of the partisan argument, it seems clear that certain areas of science have been to varying degrees corrupted, press, celebrity scientists and academic administrators taking advantages. The most important factor seems to have been the removing of the authority of science direction from the individual to the group running the funding, often staffed from the scientific community. Certainly some problems need funding, but science in general should be more of an individual search, amounts of collaboration to be decided at lower levels. Simple structural methodology is more likely to be independent of politics. Celebrity scientists who want to run our lives are not scientists, whatever the motivation. Too many cases of “I couldn’t get any funding for it.” I remember when universities first established methodologies to write ‘proper’ grant proposals.
Which describes the vast majority of so-called science reporters and journalists.
The next time someone asks me whether I “believe in science” I will say: “I do. I also believe in engineering and economics. How about you?”.
I believe that while it is actually possible to transition off using fossil fuels, there simply ain’t enough of other people’s money to do it in 30 years, let alone the 10 or 20 the alarmists claim is necessary. I also believe in history, which shows that no matter how fashionable an idea is, not every country is going to go along with becoming poor, weak and full of unhappy citizens. Some will quickly figure out they become richer and stronger just by letting the rest of the world beggar themselves.
Brilliant and irrefutable.
Judith Curry’s piece is all talk…. That careful dances around anything controversial.
It is all connected. Climate science is based on stupid dead theories, that should have been killed decades ago…. still exist because of ‘Politics’.
Why is our ‘science’ stuck? Curry is stuck analyzing and discussing a dead problem/a dead theory….
The current ‘standard’ temperature vs CO2 paradigm…. Is physically and conceptually incorrect.
Math cannot fix ‘science’ that is incorrect conceptually. There is a super interesting scientific problem that can be solved/has been solved by the observations……
And it is fact that is super strong, super financed, super deep state, and University support for CAGW. You know the time for science is over…. hence a Professor can and do get fired for not agreeing with the dead theory.
Weird that the imposed brainless ‘solution’ to CAGW, destroys countries. Odd that China jails environmentalists. No CAGW problem in China.
And I think the US university system has been corrupted by China and CAWG is a China win/ US lose scenario/game plan.
https://apnews.com/article/us-news-china-russia-d3c3002e667c4f6c2359e3de820a7997
According to early findings in the report, most of the 12 schools have had financial dealings with Huawei, the Chinese tech giant that some U.S. officials say is a threat to national security, and at least one had ties directly to the Chinese Communist Party. Others had deals with the Russian government and institutions in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The report did not identify which universities were connected to those entities. Since coming under federal scrutiny, the 12 schools disclosed a combined $6.5 billion in foreign funding that was previously unreported, the department said.
The dirty secret in Climate ‘Science’ is the earth’s temperature changes abruptly and cyclically and we do not have a physical explanation as to what is changing cyclically to cause the cyclic abrupt cooling, such as the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event 13,900 years ago…
The YD abrupt cooling event happened when solar summer insolation at 65N was maximum. There are other YD like abrupt cooling events in the paleo climate record.
The earth geomagnetic field also changes, same periodicity, and there are massive regions on the surface of the planet that have reversed magnetic polarity …. That is a subject for a science thread. One that has real observations. Curry’s piece has no observations/facts.
Odd that Google searches will not ‘find’ anything about what China is currently ‘doing’ in the US.
FBI opens new Chinese investigation every 10 hours
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/17/fbi-opens-new-chinese-investigation-every-10-hours/
By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Thursday, September 17, 2020
The FBI is opening a new counterintelligence probe of Chinese-linked threats “every 10 hours,” bureau Director Christopher Wray told Congress on Thursday, underscoring the threat Beijing poses to U.S. interests.
The proper role of scientists is to advise political leaders, not to make policy.
Scientists are too normally focused to make policy. Political leaders must make decisions based upon many factors. They need to weigh the advice of many counselors, each of whom is focused on a particular subject.
Scientifists are also unaccountable to the public when they give poor advice or their predictions do not come true.
“The Republicans seem to prefer to ignore science, while the Democrats cherry pick science to further their political agendas.”
Many have jumped on that line, particularly where she said “Republicans prefer to ignore science”.
“Climate science” HAS become political.
Read that poorly worded statement in context
Mann, Algore, AOC, etc. are worthy to be ignored.
Free “a scientific hypothesis” to be wrong or right (Freedom to learn more using the scientific method.) without the political connotations.
The Judith Curry essay is an unintended example of what is wrong with science, even though she is a scientist and should have known better: She states her personal opinion, backed by no data, no numbers, and no specific quotes from people knowledgeable about the subject. No one who disagreed with the article before publication was allowed to read it, and offer contradictory comments. The only important “science” Ms. Curry left out was a wild guess prediction of the future of science.
This essay is about as useful as wild guess computer games used to predict our planet’s climate in 100 years — called “science” only because the government bureaucrats involved have science degrees. So what? I have a BS science degree — made me better at detecting BS … and the claim to be able to predict the future climate is BS … and that’s why this excellent website exists.
The primary difference between Democrats and Republican is that Democrats believe everything they hear from “deep state” Democrats in the government, especially bad news predictions, which they love … while Republicans don’t trust government bureaucrats, especially bad news predictions, which they view as fake crises, used by leftists to scare people, and control them. Real science itself is never politicized. People with science degrees who are politicized, are not real scientists — they are “junk science specialists”.
“Real science itself is never politicized. People with science degrees who are politicized, are not real scientists”
If you are refereeing to Judith Curry, a bit to harsh.
Has a genuine scientist who pushes against “political science” politicized?
Gunga Dim
I refer to Curry’s very generic essay on science, not the person.
I find her to be a “lukewarmer”, which I view as is anti-science, on her website.
Lukewarmers compromise: They are smart enough to not believe the planet is in danger from an existential climate change crisis.
… but too dumb to reach the correct answer: We don’t know what the climate will be like in 100 years … and it is unlikely that ONE variable, man made CO2, would be the “climate controller”.
It can take great wisdom to say “We don’t know”.
Ms. Curry has a Ph.D. but apparently not the wisdom to say the computer games and 100 year climate predictions are wild guess speculation. People with Ph.D.s must think saying “I don’t know” or “We don’t know” is not something an “expert” should ever say.
On the other hand, Ms. Curry allowed my comment criticizing her essay to be posted on her website. Being skeptical of other scientists’ claims, and accepting skepticism from others about your own work, is an important characteristic of a real scientist.
Trump unknowingly used correct science when he cancelled the Paris participation.
Trump knowingly or unknowingly used furure good science when he quoted a doctor’s success with HCQ and Azithromycin and Zinc.
IF IF the Democrats were actually interested in REAL science they would have backed the Republicans in testing that treatment. However, the media, demos and Falsely promptly attacked Trump and as a result they blame Trump for over 200,000 deaths when they should be charged with criminal negligence.
That TDS has spread to Canada where they are reluctant to use a very economical treatment which works when given early and in the correct dose.
Trump – 2
Demos – 0
A shut out.
So there is my view on science.
The more I learn about climate “science”, the more convinced I have become that scientists are not yet equipped to unravel the complexities of long term climate change dynamics. Are best computers are inadequate. Furthermore, we have all witnessed the falsification of scientific evidence to arrive at predetermined conclusions. Thus, Judith is wrong when she claims conservatives ignore climate science. We simply recognize that there is little actual science in this field worthy of our attention.
frederic ohm
I’ve been reading about climate science as a hobby since 1997 and have edited a climate science blog since 2014. Those are my qualifications for saying your comment is brilliant, and reflects great wisdom on the subject.
I could only add that computer models are nothing more than the personal opinions of the people who own and program them. The causes of climate change are not yet known with enough precision to create an accurate climate physics model. Without such a physics model as their foundation, the so called global circulation climate models are nothing more than personal opinions on what causes climate change.
We know that from the consistently wrong over-predictions of warming –predicting much faster warming than actually happens.
The fact that the computer games DO NOT get more accurate with each iteration reflects a serious problem with the methodology. In fact, the models for the next IPCC report are sometimes predicting even MORE global warming.
Accurate predictions are obviously not the primary goal of the computer games. I speculate they are merely scientists’ props in a fictional play — the coming climate change crisis — a high tech way to present personal opinions about climate change, intended to scare people into demanding a more powerful leftist government, that will “save” the planet for their children. But that’s just this long time libertarian talking — I hate wild guess predictions of the fututr, and anything official !
With prediction (simulation) errors that are so consistent, rather than random, it’s obvious there is a pro-warming bias among the people who control and program the computer games.
Where Judith Curry goes badly wrong on “Republicans are ignoring science” is that her belief implicitly makes the assumption that science is infallible and largely correct most of the time. Time and again through history “consensus science” on many issues that touch on society have proven not just wrong, but badly wrong. The consensus belief was actually negative knowledge is so many cases. Making it hard to steer a new policy course when the consensus is failing as the normal point of rejection.
Negative knowledge (and negative learning) in science is having an understanding that is wrong about nature. Such that when the truth is revealed it is dis-believed and rejected constantly and becomes harder to adopt than from a naive position. This is a key reason why young Einsteins constantly overturn long-held paradigms over their older mentors, the entrenched consensus of the field’s elders are laden with reputations to protect and decades of negative learning to undo first. Not knowing bad habits and ideas help shed bad ideas.
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.
“.
– movie: The Big Short, 2015.
Republicans ignoring wrong climate science is likely a good thing. It means flawed climate-environmental laws and regulations are never adopted. It means the “good intentions” attempts of Liberals to help solve the Left Coast’s homeless-transient problems only just make the situation worse. So many areas of public policy are made much worse with negative learning and false knowledge.
Joel O’Flyin’
I liked your comment, and just wanted to add this original quote that seemed to be the source for the line in the movie:
“It ain’t so much the things that people don’t know that makes trouble in this world, as it is the things that people know that ain’t so. — Mark Twain.
I’m happy for GOP to ignore ‘the science’ … it’s mostly rubbish by press release.
I take away a different line from the piece.
“Scientists have let the politicians hijack the scientific enterprise.”
I think the actual problem is that there are many politicians posing as scientists.
Hard sciences should NOT be bought and paid for by any political party.
Good hard sciences demonstrates (with observations and measurements) what is, regardless of political persuasion. With hard science, any scientific theory either aligns with observations and measurements or it is dismiss to the trash-can of also rans.
The ‘theoretical sciences’ and ‘soft sciences’ are merely groups, of supposedly accredited academic people, with suppositions that constrain their theories and field of study but do not necessarily have to fit with observations or measurements. As such the ‘theoretical sciences’ and ‘soft sciences’ can be, and often are, highly politicized.
‘Climate science’ appears to want to be a ‘hard science’ while acting with all the unaccountable theoretical nature of a ‘soft science’.
That answer won’t do. The reporter wants a sound-bite, not a detailed, considered, discussion.
Nice dead thread banging, nitwit, though it allows you to post your drivel unmolested.
The use of the word “believe” defines the statement as religious in nature, whatever the context. Science is a system of doubt, and the word “believe” has no place in a scientific statement. Science is a system of doubt, and all things in science are subject to doubt, which is why all science changes over time, and why the concept of a consensus among scientists is so foolish.
Religion, on the other hand, contains statements or principles which cannot be doubted (if one is to remain a member of that cult). I attend church on Sundays and join in reciting the Nicene Creed, a summary of our beliefs.
But I teach my students to “QUESTION EVERYTHING”, including me, their professor. And I teach them how to differentiate between science and religion.
Climate catastrophism, by the way, defines itself as a fundamentalist religion. Think about it.
Believe, verb (used without object): to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.
I believe that quantum mechanics has not yet been disproved.
Government “scientists” are little different than the educated clergy of the monarchs who provided the “science” of the king’s right to rule by divine providence. In this fashion the church got to share in the plunder of the peasants and the king got to avoid the messy use of the sword to deprive them of their liberty and property. The government “scientists”, who as a group are at the lower levels of their profession otherwise they would have taken their STEM education and gone to work for more money in the private sector, are more easily convinced to provide only one conclusion, the political one.
First “scientists” must be held to account for THEIR political agenda driven crap, then talk to me about how we should listen to anything they have to say.
” ….. Individuals promoting ‘sound science’ work to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. The ‘sound science’ tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: science does not produce absolute certainty but is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. …..”
==============
I don’t see any wrong in that statement.