Corrupted Science Revealed

Typical debating tactic. Claim the opposition is doing what you (in this case the Bush Administration) , then challenge them to disprove it. Puts the discussion into a tail spin regarding the actual issue, and give the debater a chance to play chess and sneak out a victory.

American Thinker = Exxon Oil ? Hmm, I wonder...

 

I do not share many of Dr. Lindzen's opinions. One in particular: that governments should reduce their funding of scientific research over time. If we are in for some environmental disruptions ahead, such an approach would effectively blind us to several areas of solutions. In addition one might reasonably anticipate that major industries would step in to 'pick up the slack'. Would such funding sources be agenda driven?

 

American Thinker is obviously a right wing pub which doesn't really reflect the current opinion on a number of subjects. Just read some of their other articles and you can get an idea of where they are coming from.


American Thinker: Iraq War: Right Time, Right Place, Right War

 

Publish a paper debunking global climate change, you get free money from the oil industry!

 

The American Thinker

Publisher: Thomas Lifson
Political Director: Richard Baehr
Staff: Rick Moran
Staff: J.R. Dunn

These folks have very interesting backgrounds. Look it up. I note a strong anti-education rant among them. for example, the desire to cut government funding of science at a time when the average American student is dumb as a box of rocks

I was just wrapping up my Army career, and my degree in Chemical Engineering, by taking part in some ARPA and MURI projects. No doubt, these folks would also cut "science" for ARPA and MURI

We wouldn't be in the mess we're now in, if attention had been paid to education, specifically science. We always run around like chickens with our heads chopped off when some event happens, but fail to draw the lines to figure out why the event happened

As an example, protecting us from bad events. There was software in place back in the mid 1980's to determine object/actor and event awareness. Specifically, it was "non obvious relationship awareness" and was pioneered by Jeff Jonas.

He originally envisioned NORA to be used to protect us from "bad" actors. Nobody in government understood what the hell he was talking about. However, the gaming industry in Nevada did, along with a credit card company, as it would directly reduce the incidence of fraud

Imagine that. Legal crooks really don't like it when other crooks try to rip them off. Do you see the irony here? As a direct result of implementing NORA, the gaming industry had fraud drop right off. Very ironic that the gaming industry was far more proactive about identifying "bad" actors than the intelligence community regarding terrorism

Only after 9/11 did the intelligence community take Jonas seriously. By then, he sold his idea to IBM and became wealthy. Quite frankly, not sure why he waited so long. It has been my experience to not dink around with being passionate about an idea or service, just to make a good buck off it

As a test, the passenger data from the morning of 9/11 was fed into the entity analytic metacube used by Jonas. All of the passengers involved in the hijacking would have been denied boarding, and flagged a high security risk

So say what you want about science, especially allegations of "corrupt" science from a loony rant masquerading as a serious journal. I personally do not believe in faith, luck, santy claus, or any of that horse s***. Unless the nuts at American Thinker can propose a better solution, they should just put a sock in it

On that subject, Jimmie, how do you propose we "fix" science? I'm involved in science, personally I feel the single most critical issue we have now is that the politicians who oversee and approve funding for science, are dumb as a box of rocks. They have no clue, no f****** clue whatsoever, what is going on, what to do, and what direction to proceed

There is a very clear disconnect between scientists and politicians. Even with scientists and the military, at a certain level there is a very real Firewall that "protects" the establishment from the eggheads

Why is it that the US or Canada just can't seem to elect somebody who is a genuine scientist? I'd love to see a chemical engineer or a person with a Computer Science degree hold a major public office position. Even better to run the country

Until this country can elect or promote a genuine scientist, we will never move forward into the 21st century and meet the serious challanges now facing us

 

Good rant, Jayman. I couldn't agree more.

Tom

 

Tom

Something tells me that after 6-7 drinks, we'd both be ranting about the failure of the "edumacashun" system

jay

 

You would be ranting. After 4-5 I would be passed out.

Tom

 

Oh, ye of little faith

 

Sounds like we need a "scientific" test here. I'm buyin'!

 

I'm worried that after the third drink jayman would eat me as a snack.

Tom

 

You're on! I hope your credit card has a very high limit

 

Oy

:doh:

I'm not sure why everybody dumps on the 800 lb gorilla.

Seriously though, if we were in a small plane, somewhere in BFE, and we went down, probably after the 3rd to 4th day, it could be cause for concern. By then I'd be getting pretty hungry

I can see it now. The rescue helicopter finally arrives, the guy is winched to the ground, walks up to me

"Where's your passenger?"

Me: "What BURRRRRPPP passenger?"

 

Didn't we try this with Jimmy Carter and it did not work out so well.
Seems he told things like they really were and the voters did not want to hear any of that nonsense.

Where would we be today if we had stuck with Jimmy Carter's Energy Policy for the last 30 yrs?

 

Excellent rant, Jayman.

Perhaps we should apply for some grant money to investigate some of the other topics raised in this thread, i.e., "The effects of alcohol on priuschatters when discussing climate change and its links to cannibalism." :0

P.S. Anyone interested in a real look at corrupted science should forgo American Thinker and check out John Grant'shttp://www.amazon.com/dp/product/1904332730?tag=priuschatcom-20

 

There is a special irony in the right wing's hate of science, while fully expecting "technology" to solve any problem they find themselves in.

 

It is a symptom of the same anti-intellectualism, anti "eliteism" anti academic attitude that permeates much of the right wing. Some of these guys are so far out that they don't believe in gravity.

Even those that are not complete right wing wing nuts, like to think that the "real world" only exists in small town/small mind America. We voted for GWB because we could envision sitting down and having a beer with him (or 10!) as opposed to Gore's pointy headed intelectualism.

Let's hope that Barrack can bridge that divide.

Icarus

 

Right wing hate of science??? Where? Who? What? Because GWB didn't fund some silly global warming scheme?

I have yet to find a reputable article showing income brackets, educational levels, and other factors indicating overall intelligence levels are higher in Democratic voters than Republican voters.

Rick
#4 2006