Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dogma Over Science

ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 4:09:49 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Climate Change:

Global warming advocates like to pretend they are open-minded, all about science. But let someone else's science get in the way of their "consensus," and you find out how little they really believe in science.

Just ask Professor Valentina Zharkova of Britain's Northumbria University. She and a team of researchers conducted a study on sunspots, which are known to have a strong effect on solar radiation and thus on the Earth's climate.

What they found was remarkable: solar activity, based on models that closely fit past trends, looks to be headed for a sharp downward turn. Indeed, activity could decline to levels not seen since the so-called "Little Ice Age," an unusually cold period that stretched across the Northern Hemisphere and lasted from roughly 1650 to 1850.

As such, a study of this kind, you might think, would be incredibly important. But instead of being greeted with scientific questions or open curiosity about her group's study, Zharkova's team was met with a most unscientific hostility.

"Some of them were welcoming and discussing," she said in an interview with The Global Warming Policy Forum. "But some of them were quite " I would say " pushy."

And some went well beyond just "pushy."

"They were trying to actually silence us," said Zharkova. "Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our news release."

Global warming scientists, among whom are some real fanatics, often style themselves as latter-day Galileos, standing strong against superstition and religion and bravely taking a stand for scientific truth, just as Galileo did by saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not vice versa.

But they are nothing of the sort. Indeed, many of these so-called scientists have more in common with Galileo's persecutors than with those who have bravely pushed scientific understanding of our universe and all its workings forward.

For the record, Zharkova isn't alone in her conclusions. Other recent studies, including ones found here and here, suggest the Sun is headed for a period of extremely low activity " which means, all other things being equal, lower temperatures for much of the Earth.

No, the problem isn't the science. The problem is such research is an uncomfortable impediment of the global warming complex's unholy alliance of green interest groups, clueless movie stars, bought-and-paid-for scientists, big government politicians, and even some major corporations that see new global warming regulations as an easy way to crush their smaller competitors.

With global governments spending billions of dollars a year on climate change, almost all of it on those who believe the global warming dogma, there's too much at stake to allow a heretic to question the orthodoxy. That's why Zharkova and others are greeted with unscientific hostility.

Anyone who thinks this type of behavior is "science" is wrong. It's not even right to call it "religion," as some have, using that term as a pejorative. In fact, truly religious people actually question their faith. Only global warming's legions of true believers don't.
http://www.investors.com...

Sounds just like the behavior of atheists on our board.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 4:29:01 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 4:09:49 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Climate Change:

Global warming advocates like to pretend they are open-minded, all about science. But let someone else's science get in the way of their "consensus," and you find out how little they really believe in science.

Just ask Professor Valentina Zharkova of Britain's Northumbria University. She and a team of researchers conducted a study on sunspots, which are known to have a strong effect on solar radiation and thus on the Earth's climate.

What they found was remarkable: solar activity, based on models that closely fit past trends, looks to be headed for a sharp downward turn. Indeed, activity could decline to levels not seen since the so-called "Little Ice Age," an unusually cold period that stretched across the Northern Hemisphere and lasted from roughly 1650 to 1850.

As such, a study of this kind, you might think, would be incredibly important. But instead of being greeted with scientific questions or open curiosity about her group's study, Zharkova's team was met with a most unscientific hostility.

"Some of them were welcoming and discussing," she said in an interview with The Global Warming Policy Forum. "But some of them were quite " I would say " pushy."

And some went well beyond just "pushy."

"They were trying to actually silence us," said Zharkova. "Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our news release."

Global warming scientists, among whom are some real fanatics, often style themselves as latter-day Galileos, standing strong against superstition and religion and bravely taking a stand for scientific truth, just as Galileo did by saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not vice versa.

But they are nothing of the sort. Indeed, many of these so-called scientists have more in common with Galileo's persecutors than with those who have bravely pushed scientific understanding of our universe and all its workings forward.

For the record, Zharkova isn't alone in her conclusions. Other recent studies, including ones found here and here, suggest the Sun is headed for a period of extremely low activity " which means, all other things being equal, lower temperatures for much of the Earth.

No, the problem isn't the science. The problem is such research is an uncomfortable impediment of the global warming complex's unholy alliance of green interest groups, clueless movie stars, bought-and-paid-for scientists, big government politicians, and even some major corporations that see new global warming regulations as an easy way to crush their smaller competitors.

With global governments spending billions of dollars a year on climate change, almost all of it on those who believe the global warming dogma, there's too much at stake to allow a heretic to question the orthodoxy. That's why Zharkova and others are greeted with unscientific hostility.

Anyone who thinks this type of behavior is "science" is wrong. It's not even right to call it "religion," as some have, using that term as a pejorative. In fact, truly religious people actually question their faith. Only global warming's legions of true believers don't.
http://www.investors.com...

Sounds just like the behavior of atheists on our board.

So why post this in the religion forum, Eth?
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 4:43:34 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 4:09:49 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Climate Change:

Global warming advocates like to pretend they are open-minded, all about science. But let someone else's science get in the way of their "consensus," and you find out how little they really believe in science.

Just ask Professor Valentina Zharkova of Britain's Northumbria University. She and a team of researchers conducted a study on sunspots, which are known to have a strong effect on solar radiation and thus on the Earth's climate.

What they found was remarkable: solar activity, based on models that closely fit past trends, looks to be headed for a sharp downward turn. Indeed, activity could decline to levels not seen since the so-called "Little Ice Age," an unusually cold period that stretched across the Northern Hemisphere and lasted from roughly 1650 to 1850.

As such, a study of this kind, you might think, would be incredibly important. But instead of being greeted with scientific questions or open curiosity about her group's study, Zharkova's team was met with a most unscientific hostility.

"Some of them were welcoming and discussing," she said in an interview with The Global Warming Policy Forum. "But some of them were quite " I would say " pushy."

And some went well beyond just "pushy."

"They were trying to actually silence us," said Zharkova. "Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our news release."

Global warming scientists, among whom are some real fanatics, often style themselves as latter-day Galileos, standing strong against superstition and religion and bravely taking a stand for scientific truth, just as Galileo did by saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not vice versa.

But they are nothing of the sort. Indeed, many of these so-called scientists have more in common with Galileo's persecutors than with those who have bravely pushed scientific understanding of our universe and all its workings forward.

For the record, Zharkova isn't alone in her conclusions. Other recent studies, including ones found here and here, suggest the Sun is headed for a period of extremely low activity " which means, all other things being equal, lower temperatures for much of the Earth.

No, the problem isn't the science. The problem is such research is an uncomfortable impediment of the global warming complex's unholy alliance of green interest groups, clueless movie stars, bought-and-paid-for scientists, big government politicians, and even some major corporations that see new global warming regulations as an easy way to crush their smaller competitors.

With global governments spending billions of dollars a year on climate change, almost all of it on those who believe the global warming dogma, there's too much at stake to allow a heretic to question the orthodoxy. That's why Zharkova and others are greeted with unscientific hostility.

Anyone who thinks this type of behavior is "science" is wrong. It's not even right to call it "religion," as some have, using that term as a pejorative. In fact, truly religious people actually question their faith. Only global warming's legions of true believers don't.
http://www.investors.com...

Sounds just like the behavior of atheists on our board.

I know this belongs in the Science forum, Eth, but here is what Professor Zharkova actually said in an accredited interview.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 5:12:50 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 4:29:01 PM, desmac wrote:
At 8/12/2016 4:09:49 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Climate Change:

Global warming advocates like to pretend they are open-minded, all about science. But let someone else's science get in the way of their "consensus," and you find out how little they really believe in science.

Just ask Professor Valentina Zharkova of Britain's Northumbria University. She and a team of researchers conducted a study on sunspots, which are known to have a strong effect on solar radiation and thus on the Earth's climate.

What they found was remarkable: solar activity, based on models that closely fit past trends, looks to be headed for a sharp downward turn. Indeed, activity could decline to levels not seen since the so-called "Little Ice Age," an unusually cold period that stretched across the Northern Hemisphere and lasted from roughly 1650 to 1850.

As such, a study of this kind, you might think, would be incredibly important. But instead of being greeted with scientific questions or open curiosity about her group's study, Zharkova's team was met with a most unscientific hostility.

"Some of them were welcoming and discussing," she said in an interview with The Global Warming Policy Forum. "But some of them were quite " I would say " pushy."

And some went well beyond just "pushy."

"They were trying to actually silence us," said Zharkova. "Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our news release."

Global warming scientists, among whom are some real fanatics, often style themselves as latter-day Galileos, standing strong against superstition and religion and bravely taking a stand for scientific truth, just as Galileo did by saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not vice versa.

But they are nothing of the sort. Indeed, many of these so-called scientists have more in common with Galileo's persecutors than with those who have bravely pushed scientific understanding of our universe and all its workings forward.

For the record, Zharkova isn't alone in her conclusions. Other recent studies, including ones found here and here, suggest the Sun is headed for a period of extremely low activity " which means, all other things being equal, lower temperatures for much of the Earth.

No, the problem isn't the science. The problem is such research is an uncomfortable impediment of the global warming complex's unholy alliance of green interest groups, clueless movie stars, bought-and-paid-for scientists, big government politicians, and even some major corporations that see new global warming regulations as an easy way to crush their smaller competitors.

With global governments spending billions of dollars a year on climate change, almost all of it on those who believe the global warming dogma, there's too much at stake to allow a heretic to question the orthodoxy. That's why Zharkova and others are greeted with unscientific hostility.

Anyone who thinks this type of behavior is "science" is wrong. It's not even right to call it "religion," as some have, using that term as a pejorative. In fact, truly religious people actually question their faith. Only global warming's legions of true believers don't.
http://www.investors.com...

Sounds just like the behavior of atheists on our board.

So why post this in the religion forum, Eth?

Sounds just like the behavior of atheists on our board.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 5:19:04 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 5:12:50 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/12/2016 4:29:01 PM, desmac wrote:
At 8/12/2016 4:09:49 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Climate Change:

Global warming advocates like to pretend they are open-minded, all about science. But let someone else's science get in the way of their "consensus," and you find out how little they really believe in science.

Just ask Professor Valentina Zharkova of Britain's Northumbria University. She and a team of researchers conducted a study on sunspots, which are known to have a strong effect on solar radiation and thus on the Earth's climate.

What they found was remarkable: solar activity, based on models that closely fit past trends, looks to be headed for a sharp downward turn. Indeed, activity could decline to levels not seen since the so-called "Little Ice Age," an unusually cold period that stretched across the Northern Hemisphere and lasted from roughly 1650 to 1850.

As such, a study of this kind, you might think, would be incredibly important. But instead of being greeted with scientific questions or open curiosity about her group's study, Zharkova's team was met with a most unscientific hostility.

"Some of them were welcoming and discussing," she said in an interview with The Global Warming Policy Forum. "But some of them were quite " I would say " pushy."

And some went well beyond just "pushy."

"They were trying to actually silence us," said Zharkova. "Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our news release."

Global warming scientists, among whom are some real fanatics, often style themselves as latter-day Galileos, standing strong against superstition and religion and bravely taking a stand for scientific truth, just as Galileo did by saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not vice versa.

But they are nothing of the sort. Indeed, many of these so-called scientists have more in common with Galileo's persecutors than with those who have bravely pushed scientific understanding of our universe and all its workings forward.

For the record, Zharkova isn't alone in her conclusions. Other recent studies, including ones found here and here, suggest the Sun is headed for a period of extremely low activity " which means, all other things being equal, lower temperatures for much of the Earth.

No, the problem isn't the science. The problem is such research is an uncomfortable impediment of the global warming complex's unholy alliance of green interest groups, clueless movie stars, bought-and-paid-for scientists, big government politicians, and even some major corporations that see new global warming regulations as an easy way to crush their smaller competitors.

With global governments spending billions of dollars a year on climate change, almost all of it on those who believe the global warming dogma, there's too much at stake to allow a heretic to question the orthodoxy. That's why Zharkova and others are greeted with unscientific hostility.

Anyone who thinks this type of behavior is "science" is wrong. It's not even right to call it "religion," as some have, using that term as a pejorative. In fact, truly religious people actually question their faith. Only global warming's legions of true believers don't.
http://www.investors.com...

Sounds just like the behavior of atheists on our board.

So why post this in the religion forum, Eth?

Sounds just like the behavior of atheists on our board.

Maybe in your befuddled mind, but even your cut and paste job says "its not even right to call it religion".
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 5:26:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 5:19:04 PM, desmac wrote:
At 8/12/2016 5:12:50 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Climate Change:

Global warming advocates like to pretend they are open-minded, all about science. But let someone else's science get in the way of their "consensus," and you find out how little they really believe in science.

Just ask Professor Valentina Zharkova of Britain's Northumbria University. She and a team of researchers conducted a study on sunspots, which are known to have a strong effect on solar radiation and thus on the Earth's climate.

What they found was remarkable: solar activity, based on models that closely fit past trends, looks to be headed for a sharp downward turn. Indeed, activity could decline to levels not seen since the so-called "Little Ice Age," an unusually cold period that stretched across the Northern Hemisphere and lasted from roughly 1650 to 1850.

As such, a study of this kind, you might think, would be incredibly important. But instead of being greeted with scientific questions or open curiosity about her group's study, Zharkova's team was met with a most unscientific hostility.

"Some of them were welcoming and discussing," she said in an interview with The Global Warming Policy Forum. "But some of them were quite " I would say " pushy."

And some went well beyond just "pushy."

"They were trying to actually silence us," said Zharkova. "Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our news release."

Global warming scientists, among whom are some real fanatics, often style themselves as latter-day Galileos, standing strong against superstition and religion and bravely taking a stand for scientific truth, just as Galileo did by saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not vice versa.

But they are nothing of the sort. Indeed, many of these so-called scientists have more in common with Galileo's persecutors than with those who have bravely pushed scientific understanding of our universe and all its workings forward.

For the record, Zharkova isn't alone in her conclusions. Other recent studies, including ones found here and here, suggest the Sun is headed for a period of extremely low activity " which means, all other things being equal, lower temperatures for much of the Earth.

No, the problem isn't the science. The problem is such research is an uncomfortable impediment of the global warming complex's unholy alliance of green interest groups, clueless movie stars, bought-and-paid-for scientists, big government politicians, and even some major corporations that see new global warming regulations as an easy way to crush their smaller competitors.

With global governments spending billions of dollars a year on climate change, almost all of it on those who believe the global warming dogma, there's too much at stake to allow a heretic to question the orthodoxy. That's why Zharkova and others are greeted with unscientific hostility.

Anyone who thinks this type of behavior is "science" is wrong. It's not even right to call it "religion," as some have, using that term as a pejorative. In fact, truly religious people actually question their faith. Only global warming's legions of true believers don't.
http://www.investors.com...

Sounds just like the behavior of atheists on our board.

So why post this in the religion forum, Eth?

Sounds just like the behavior of atheists on our board.

Maybe in your befuddled mind, but even your cut and paste job says "its not even right to call it religion".

I didn't say it was right to call it a religion. I posted the comment in answer to your
question as to why it was on the religion board. Pay attention.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 5:40:41 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
So are we to entertain the premise that if scientific orthodoxy can be shown sufficiently lazy, incompetent, bigoted, vain, ignorant, corrupt and self-important, it can look just like religious dogmatism?

If so, why is religious dogmatism the worst measure of unethical intellectual dishonesty the OP can produce?

Or if that's not the premise, what is?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 8:18:45 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 4:09:49 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Climate Change:

Global warming advocates like to pretend they are open-minded, all about science. But let someone else's science get in the way of their "consensus," and you find out how little they really believe in science.

Just ask Professor Valentina Zharkova of Britain's Northumbria University. She and a team of researchers conducted a study on sunspots, which are known to have a strong effect on solar radiation and thus on the Earth's climate.

What they found was remarkable: solar activity, based on models that closely fit past trends, looks to be headed for a sharp downward turn. Indeed, activity could decline to levels not seen since the so-called "Little Ice Age," an unusually cold period that stretched across the Northern Hemisphere and lasted from roughly 1650 to 1850.

"Little ice age" headlines are misleading:

No, they DIDN"T say "there will be a mini ice age". That"s a mistaken conclusion the Independent writers should not have made. The study is about predicting the Sun"s activity. Their prediction, using a new idea for a model of how the sun works, shows a decrease in solar activity.


http://doubtfulnews.com...

As such, a study of this kind, you might think, would be incredibly important. But instead of being greeted with scientific questions or open curiosity about her group's study, Zharkova's team was met with a most unscientific hostility.

"Some of them were welcoming and discussing," she said in an interview with The Global Warming Policy Forum. "But some of them were quite " I would say " pushy."

And some went well beyond just "pushy."

"They were trying to actually silence us," said Zharkova. "Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our news release."

Global warming scientists, among whom are some real fanatics, often style themselves as latter-day Galileos, standing strong against superstition and religion and bravely taking a stand for scientific truth, just as Galileo did by saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not vice versa.

But they are nothing of the sort. Indeed, many of these so-called scientists have more in common with Galileo's persecutors than with those who have bravely pushed scientific understanding of our universe and all its workings forward.

For the record, Zharkova isn't alone in her conclusions. Other recent studies, including ones found here and here, suggest the Sun is headed for a period of extremely low activity " which means, all other things being equal, lower temperatures for much of the Earth.

No, the problem isn't the science. The problem is such research is an uncomfortable impediment of the global warming complex's unholy alliance of green interest groups, clueless movie stars, bought-and-paid-for scientists, big government politicians, and even some major corporations that see new global warming regulations as an easy way to crush their smaller competitors.

With global governments spending billions of dollars a year on climate change, almost all of it on those who believe the global warming dogma, there's too much at stake to allow a heretic to question the orthodoxy. That's why Zharkova and others are greeted with unscientific hostility.

Anyone who thinks this type of behavior is "science" is wrong. It's not even right to call it "religion," as some have, using that term as a pejorative. In fact, truly religious people actually question their faith. Only global warming's legions of true believers don't.
http://www.investors.com...

Sounds just like the behavior of atheists on our board.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 6:36:29 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 5:40:41 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

So are we to entertain the premise that if scientific orthodoxy can be shown sufficiently lazy, incompetent, bigoted, vain, ignorant, corrupt and self-important, it can look just like religious dogmatism?

It is your premise, you may entertain it however you please.

If so, why is religious dogmatism the worst measure of unethical intellectual dishonesty the OP can produce?

As that is your question to yourself, I will allow you to answer it.

I will though use this space instead to ask a question, "Why did the scientists in the article meet so much hostility?" Why would a scientist be hostile to a study showing that the suns near future activity does not support the idea of global warming?

Even if they thought the study was wrong, why the hostility?

Or if that's not the premise, what is?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 7:06:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 6:36:29 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Why did the scientists in the article meet so much hostility?

Within the broader sphere of empirical inquiry, Ethan, scientists undertake three broad activities: explore new ideas and methods, critique ideas and methods, and defend the integrity of the profession and the enterprise.

More than two thirds of those activities are adversarial. Scientists are normally collegiate in manner, and hostility isn't usual, but isn't uncommon either. Over time, better data trumps hostility, and that has been shown time and again.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,968
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 7:42:42 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Ok... here is what happened. Zharkova (an astrophysicist, not climate scientist) published a paper about a newly proposed mechanism for sunspot production, which predicts a low in sunspot activity upto 2030 or so. There is nothing about climate in the paper - its about the astrophsyics of sun-like stars.

In the press release Zharkov said : ""In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other " peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a "Maunder minimum"," said Zharkova. "Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago."

To be helpful, the editor of the press release hyperlinked 'Maunder minimum' to the relevant wikipedia article. There is a section in that article 'The little ice age' https://en.wikipedia.org... and that seems to have prompted the media to a classic of 2+2=5 and reporting that Zharkova was predicting an ice age by 2030!

As the wiki article makes clear, there is no agreement that sunspots affected climate in the Maunder minimum, but journalists only noticed the 'ice age' headline!

It is disingenuous to say there was any attempt to suppress Zharkov's research - what seems to have happened is there was some attempt to limit the damage done by the faulty reporting prompted by the press release.

Zharkov's research was not about the connection between sunspots and climate, but there plenty of papers that are if people are interested.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 8:54:07 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 7:06:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/15/2016 6:36:29 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Why did the scientists in the article meet so much hostility?

Within the broader sphere of empirical inquiry, Ethan, scientists undertake three broad activities: explore new ideas and methods, critique ideas and methods, and defend the integrity of the profession and the enterprise.

More than two thirds of those activities are adversarial.

Don't be disingenuous. Adversarial need not be hostile. The scientist felt hostility. And in fact, the whole sphere of "climate science" has had many a scandal as we see that "men of science" are not nearly defending the integrity of the profession as trying to maintain their personal status.

Scientists are normally collegiate in manner, and hostility isn't usual, but isn't uncommon either.

Hostility is uncommon. It is very uncommon, which is why it usually makes the news when it happens. And no matter how frequent it is, it is never justified. There is no good reason to ever be hostile to a person bringing data.

Over time, better data trumps hostility, and that has been shown time and again.

Sometimes, hostility hinders better data. People suffer. People die. Telling those people, "it will all sort itself out is unjust nonsense. In the main time, I call hypocrisy on the people claiming to be objective, unbiased men of science.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 9:05:52 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 7:42:42 PM, keithprosser wrote:

Ok... here is what happened. Zharkova (an astrophysicist, not climate scientist) published a paper about a newly proposed mechanism for sunspot production, which predicts a low in sunspot activity upto 2030 or so. There is nothing about climate in the paper - its about the astrophsyics of sun-like stars.

In the press release Zharkov said : ""In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other " peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a "Maunder minimum"," said Zharkova. "Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago."

To be helpful, the editor of the press release hyperlinked 'Maunder minimum' to the relevant wikipedia article. There is a section in that article 'The little ice age' https://en.wikipedia.org... and that seems to have prompted the media to a classic of 2+2=5 and reporting that Zharkova was predicting an ice age by 2030!

As the wiki article makes clear, there is no agreement that sunspots affected climate in the Maunder minimum, but journalists only noticed the 'ice age' headline!

It is disingenuous to say there was any attempt to suppress Zharkov's research -

Who said this?

...what seems to have happened is there was some attempt to limit the damage done by the faulty reporting prompted by the press release.

An overly generous interpretation. Zharkov was not responsible for the reporting, so why should she have felt any hostility? In fact, a few went beyond simple hostility.

And every time the "Climate Science" thugs have been caught with their pants down, defenders, attempting to limit the damage to science itself, excuse the thugs.

Zharkov's research was not about the connection between sunspots and climate, but there plenty of papers that are if people are interested.

But many scientists feared people assuming this and wanted to discourage such research. Others, confused by emotional bias, assumed she had an anti-climate science agenda and went on to attempt to abuse and slander her.

These politico-science thugs need to be rooted out of academia. They harm the progress of science and put a damper on scientific iconoclasm.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 9:56:06 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 8:54:07 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/15/2016 7:06:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/15/2016 6:36:29 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Why did the scientists in the article meet so much hostility?
Within the broader sphere of empirical inquiry, Ethan, scientists undertake three broad activities: explore new ideas and methods, critique ideas and methods, and defend the integrity of the profession and the enterprise.
More than two thirds of those activities are adversarial.
Don't be disingenuous. Adversarial need not be hostile.
Says the adherent of a faith dedicated to love that has repeatedly inflicted ethnic cleansing on its own over doctrinal differences?

Adversarialism can easily escalate over real or perceived unfairness and intransigence, as your own faith shows. You have a divine commandment against killing on pain of eternal hellfire that your own faith has been unable to take seriously when its doctrines are challenged.

So you can understand if scientists sometimes take things personally too.

Scientists are normally collegiate in manner, and hostility isn't usual, but isn't uncommon either.
Hostility is uncommon.
Copernicanism vs Ptolemaism, Newton vs Leibniz, Edison vs Tesla, Evolution vs Creationism, the Cope vs Rush Bone Wars, Climate Science vs Climate Antiscience, to name but a few.

(Actually there's religious orthodoxy driving half those.)

There is no good reason to ever be hostile to a person bringing data.
Please define 'hostile', Ethan. I know what it means to me, but cannot guess what it means to you.

Over time, better data trumps hostility, and that has been shown time and again.
Sometimes, hostility hinders better data.
Yes, hence the need for time.

In the main time, I call hypocrisy on the people claiming to be objective, unbiased men of science.
Please cite some scientists from the 20th century or later who claim that they themselves are unbiased, Ethan.

Part of the reason for peer review and double blind experiments is just how pervasive bias can be. The job of science is to prevent it if possible, but detect and correct it as soon as possible if not.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,968
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 10:01:25 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
These way these things are reported and commented on is never free of bias. For instance.

"They were trying to actually silence us," said Zharkova. "Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our news release."

Who are 'They'? The anti-climate change lobby want us to think 'they' are the climate change establishment, a shadowy cabal driven by dogma over scientific ethics. But 'they' could be one or two individuals who made a polite phone call rightly concerned that the media were getting the wrong end of the stick from the press release.

Which is nearer the truth? I don't know, and I suspect neither does the author of the OP.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 11:35:23 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 9:56:06 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/16/2016 8:54:07 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Why did the scientists in the article meet so much hostility?

Within the broader sphere of empirical inquiry, Ethan, scientists undertake three broad activities: explore new ideas and methods, critique ideas and methods, and defend the integrity of the profession and the enterprise.
More than two thirds of those activities are adversarial.

Don't be disingenuous. Adversarial need not be hostile.

Says the adherent of a faith dedicated to love that has repeatedly inflicted ethnic cleansing on its own over doctrinal differences?

Adversarialism can easily escalate over real or perceived unfairness and intransigence, as your own faith shows. You have a divine commandment against killing on pain of eternal hellfire that your own faith has been unable to take seriously when its doctrines are challenged.

So you can understand if scientists sometimes take things personally too.

That was a lot of useless verbage for a concession, but we know you. And thanks for the concession.

Scientists are normally collegiate in manner, and hostility isn't usual, but isn't uncommon either.

Hostility is uncommon.

Copernicanism vs Ptolemaism, Newton vs Leibniz, Edison vs Tesla,

These are lawsuits, not evidence of hostility.

Evolution vs Creationism,

The only hostility here is from the evolution side, and most creationists aren't scientists.

..the Cope vs Rush Bone Wars,

One legit case.

Climate Science vs Climate Antiscience,....

Mention one scientist in anti-climate science.

...to name but a few.

One case out of hundreds of thousands proves hostilities are common? Know why you had to lie here? Because I was right. Hostility in science is uncommon.

(Actually there's religious orthodoxy driving half those.)

lol. Then it's no wonder you picked them.

There is no good reason to ever be hostile to a person bringing data.

Please define 'hostile', Ethan. I know what it means to me, but cannot guess what it means to you.

Did you know what it meant in the article?

Over time, better data trumps hostility, and that has been shown time and again.

Sometimes, hostility hinders better data.

Yes, hence the need for time.

No. Hence the need for justice.

In the main time, I call hypocrisy on the people claiming to be objective, unbiased men of science.

Please cite some scientists from the 20th century or later who claim that they themselves are unbiased, Ethan.

Richard Dawkins

Part of the reason for peer review and double blind experiments is just how pervasive bias can be. The job of science is to prevent it if possible, but detect and correct it as soon as possible if not.

Then someone should alert science to the thugs loitering around Climate Science.
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 11:44:00 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
I've heard Brian Cox, among others, speak on this and declare it an absolute furphy. A lessening of solar flair activity has the potential to alter the earths atmospheric conditions.
Woopee duck. You godbotherers don't believe scientists, new gods, anyway.
You do know that THOR produces thunder, don't you?
And that is a fact because he uses atmospheric conditions in his production of thunder.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 1:06:35 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 11:35:23 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/16/2016 9:56:06 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Copernicanism vs Ptolemaism, Newton vs Leibniz, Edison vs Tesla,
These are lawsuits, not evidence of hostility.
You need to read more history, Ethan.

Evolution vs Creationism,
The only hostility here is from the evolution side, and most creationists aren't scientists.
You need to read more history, Ethan.

Climate Science vs Climate Antiscience,....
Mention one scientist in anti-climate science.
There's very little opposition to global warming from climatologists, but some from non-climate scientists, and it can at times get heated. E.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] For example, the first on the list, David Bellamy, penned a newspaper op-ed entitled "Global Warming? What a load of Poppycock!" Also on the list, Fred Singer has contributed anti-climate opinion to an organ called "Junk Science". That's not really a respectful exchange of ideas, is it?

As I said, hostility is not uncommon.

One case out of hundreds of thousands proves hostilities are common?
That would depend on how you define hostility, and you've yet to do so. Heated (but normally brief) opposition is frequent, and that fits a broad definition. Prolonged feuding is much less frequent -- I've never seen it personally -- but personality conflicts occur in science just as in other disciplines, and chilly unfriendiness is known in every field. Einstein suffered it from Heisenberg all his life, for example. Newton and Leibniz loathed one another. If the most eminent scientists can treat one another that way when they have so little to prove, you can bet others do too, and I've seen it myself at times. As I said, it's not usual, but not uncommon either.

(Actually there's religious orthodoxy driving half those.)
lol. Then it's no wonder you picked them.
Religious orthodoxy has a history of hostility toward contrary evidence, Ethan, frequently attacking the character and methods of scientists unjustly. That's why I find it ironic that you say this should never happen, when most of the hostility toward science I know of comes from orthodox and fundamentalist religion.

There is no good reason to ever be hostile to a person bringing data.
Please define 'hostile', Ethan. I know what it means to me, but cannot guess what it means to you.
Did you know what it meant in the article?
I can use a dictionary, but am wondering what a belligerent member who routinely engages in insult and defiance might recognise as hostile.

Regardless, I've made the substantive points I wish to make, and you haven't said anything further to interest me. Thank you for the thread, Ethan.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 2:01:50 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 1:06:35 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Evolution vs Creationism,
The only hostility here is from the evolution side, and most creationists aren't scientists.
You need to read more history, Ethan.

One has to be either uninformed beyond belief or simply lying to suggest that the hostility in the Evolution vs Creationism debate - let's call it a debate - is from the evolution side alone or even mostly.

The charitable option is to think Ethan is completely ignorant on both the history and contemporary developments of this debate. Just this forum alone is illustrative of the extents some creationists will go to in order to passively-aggressively defend their beliefs, and these include, but are not limited to, a never ending stream of insults directed at evolutionists.

With some creationists, it's like this: the less they know the more they slander.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 4:35:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 1:06:35 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/16/2016 11:35:23 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Copernicanism vs Ptolemaism, Newton vs Leibniz, Edison vs Tesla,
These are lawsuits, not evidence of hostility.
You need to read more history, Ethan.

lol. Ok, If you wish to postulate that scientists sued each other because they didn't like each other, be my guest. Anyone researching the case will know these were legit lawsuits, not vindictive "I hate yous".

Evolution vs Creationism,
The only hostility here is from the evolution side, and most creationists aren't scientists.
You need to read more history, Ethan.

Even you have claimed that Creationists aren't scientists. As such, you cannot use them as an example for hostility from scientists. Doing so knowingly is lying. My level of historical knowledge has nothing to do with your error.

Climate Science vs Climate Antiscience,....

Mention one scientist in anti-climate science.

There's very little opposition to global warming from climatologists, but some from non-climate scientists, and it can at times get heated. E.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] For example, the first on the list, David Bellamy, penned a newspaper op-ed entitled "Global Warming? What a load of Poppycock!" Also on the list, Fred Singer has contributed anti-climate opinion to an organ called "Junk Science". That's not really a respectful exchange of ideas, is it?

you couldn't mention even one, but you could post smoke. Anti-climate science. lol.

As I said, hostility is not uncommon.

Backtrack.

One case out of hundreds of thousands proves hostilities are common?

That would depend on how you define hostility, and you've yet to do so. Heated (but normally brief) opposition is frequent, and that fits a broad definition. Prolonged feuding is much less frequent -- I've never seen it personally -- but personality conflicts occur in science just as in other disciplines, and chilly unfriendiness is known in every field. Einstein suffered it from Heisenberg all his life, for example. Newton and Leibniz loathed one another. If the most eminent scientists can treat one another that way when they have so little to prove, you can bet others do too, and I've seen it myself at times. As I said, it's not usual, but not uncommon either.

The point is not that scientists are not, or should not be capable of hatred, but that scientists should not show hostility to another because of the data they uncover. Heisenberg did not hate Einstein because of what Einstein discovered, it was a personality thing. This is not a personality thing.

(Actually there's religious orthodoxy driving half those.)

lol. Then it's no wonder you picked them.

Religious orthodoxy has a history of hostility toward contrary evidence, Ethan,

Perhaps, but we aren't discussing religious orthodoxy here. We are discussing science, whose practitioners claim to be objective and dogma free.

...frequently attacking the character and methods of scientists unjustly. That's why I find it ironic that you say this should never happen,

That is not what I've said, that is why you wish me to say. I say that when it does happen, science should own up and address the thugs instead of employing smarmy tactics like those on parade here.

...when most of the hostility toward science I know of comes from orthodox and fundamentalist religion.

Orthodox and fundamentalist religion claim dogma. Science does not, thus the scientist is more guilty when he follows dogma while claiming not to have any. But what is this? "Religion does it too." Even if true, how does that absolve science?

There is no good reason to ever be hostile to a person bringing data.
Please define 'hostile', Ethan. I know what it means to me, but cannot guess what it means to you.
Did you know what it meant in the article?

I can use a dictionary, but am wondering what a belligerent member who routinely engages in insult and defiance might recognise as hostile.

Answer the question.

Regardless, I've made the substantive points I wish to make,....

lol "substantive" must be another word for which you need a dictionary.

...and you haven't said anything further to interest me.

I'm sorry Ruv. I have failed in my purpose to entertain you. lol. Loony leftists.

Thank you for the thread, Ethan.

That endorsement means everything to me Ruv. You are welcome.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 7:48:37 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 4:35:05 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:06:35 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/16/2016 11:35:23 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Copernicanism vs Ptolemaism, Newton vs Leibniz, Edison vs Tesla,
These are lawsuits, not evidence of hostility.
You need to read more history, Ethan.
lol. Ok, If you wish to postulate that scientists sued each other because they didn't like each other, be my guest.
Ethan, please do not strawman.

It was you who jumped to the conclusion about lawsuits, perhaps because you know something of the Edison vs Tesla conflict while knowing little of the other two. But here's Tesla talking about Edison:

"If [Thomas Edison] had a needle to find in a haystack, he would not stop to reason where it was most likely to be, but would proceed at once with the feverish diligence of a bee, to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. " Just a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety percent of his labor."

Here's another quote:

He had a veritable contempt for book learning and mathematical knowledge, trusting himself entirely to his inventor's instinct and practical American sense. In view of this, the truly prodigious amount of his actual accomplishments is little short of a miracle.

So no, he didn't have respect nor kindness for Edison.

I leave it to you to consider what you understand of the other two examples and how 'lawsuits' applies to them while 'hostility' does not.

Regarding the rest of your points, like your point above you seem to be arguing without knowledge just for the opportunity to insult. It seems that the more I explain, the sillier and ruder you will become. I believe you have been silly and rude enough in this thread already, which is ironic, given that you've said information never justifies hostility.

So since you will not research, admit ignorance or curb your belligerence, if you would like more information about the other examples I cited, please ask an open question and if it is respectful I'll answer it. If it is not a respectful question or is not open then please do not expect me to address it in substance.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 10:16:18 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 7:48:37 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/16/2016 4:35:05 PM, ethang5 wrote:

still interested huh? Spoke too rashly?

Copernicanism vs Ptolemaism, Newton vs Leibniz, Edison vs Tesla,

These are lawsuits, not evidence of hostility.

You need to read more history, Ethan.

lol. Ok, If you wish to postulate that scientists sued each other because they didn't like each other, be my guest.

Ethan, please do not strawman.

Stop being dishonest Ruv. The point is whether hostility is common or uncommon. Your short list does not address the issue and is not evidence for your point that hostility in science is common. And it certainly does not contradict my point that hostility is uncommon.

What is sleazy is now you want to focus on the few cases rather than the actual point. This is standard MO for you. I find it intellectually dishonest. If you're so informed and smart, why do you need obfuscation and misdirection?

It was you who jumped to the conclusion about lawsuits,.....

I said nothing about lawsuits. You did. And now you're scrambling because you think you've gotten me to chase your red hering.

...perhaps because you know something of the Edison vs Tesla conflict while knowing little of the other two. But here's Tesla talking about Edison:

What Tesla said doesn't matter. No rabbit holes here. One case doesn't prove your point or counter mine. And just as I said, their enmity was not because one hated the data of the other, it was personality driven. Scientists are human and can be expected to be hostile to certain personalities, but should never be hostile to data or the one who uncovers it because they have uncovered it.

Here's another quote:

Address the point. If you cannot, say so. Pointless verbage only enhance your reputation as a windbag.

So no, he didn't have respect nor kindness for Edison.

No one said he did. Address the point. You've probably forgotten that you can't operate in your normal way with me. Be reminded. Rabbit holes, red herrings, and copious verbage meant to misdirect don't work with me.

I leave it to you to consider what you understand of the other two examples and how 'lawsuits' applies to them while 'hostility' does not.

No one said "hostility" does not apply. I said the hostility was not due to anger at the scientific data discovered by the scientist.

Regarding the rest of your points, like your point above you seem to be arguing without knowledge just for the opportunity to insult.

Stop being stupid. My alleged lack of knowledge of a couple of cases has no baring on the point in question or the hundred of thousands of cases. You will not be allowed to divert attention to particulars about your examples when your examples are irrelevant. Even if your examples were proper examples of hostility due to research data, it would still not invalidate my point that hostility is uncommon.

It seems that the more I explain, the sillier and ruder you will become.

I'm glad you used "seems". I do not suffer fakery and sleaze lightly. I think intellectual dishonesty is worse than outright stupid lies. You have been this way so long, I don't think you are capable of honest interaction anymore.

I believe you have been silly and rude enough in this thread already, which is ironic, given that you've said information never justifies hostility.

There you go again. I did not say information never justifies hostility. That is just another example of you being sleazy. Almost every time you paraphrase me, you tell a deliberate lie to further you point through dishonest means.

So since you will not research, admit ignorance or curb your belligerence, if you would like more information about the other examples I cited,...

As soon as you go into your windbag, I'm so smart and informed mode, I tune you out. Go teach one of the dolts on the board who are impressed with your smarm.

If you want to engage me, stay on topic, gain some intellectual integrity, and stop being a windbag. You aren't a teacher or as smart as you seem to think.

Still interested?
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 10:34:37 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Does anyone have any evidence of this alleged "Hostility" towards Professor Zharkova?
keithprosser
Posts: 1,968
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 10:58:58 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Does anyone here know anything at all about what actually happened?

All there seems to be is one or two quotes without much context.

I would suggest perhaps contacting the lady professor herself and getting the story straight before debating events we know next to nothing about.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 12:04:09 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 10:34:37 AM, desmac wrote:

Does anyone have any evidence of this alleged "Hostility" towards Professor Zharkova?

Would the actual words of Professor Zharkova count?
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 12:49:09 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 12:04:09 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/17/2016 10:34:37 AM, desmac wrote:

Does anyone have any evidence of this alleged "Hostility" towards Professor Zharkova?

Would the actual words of Professor Zharkova count?

Of course.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 12:53:34 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 12:49:09 PM, desmac wrote:
At 8/17/2016 12:04:09 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/17/2016 10:34:37 AM, desmac wrote:

Does anyone have any evidence of this alleged "Hostility" towards Professor Zharkova?

Would the actual words of Professor Zharkova count?

Of course.

They would certainly count, but even they would not constitute definitive confirmation.
One would need to hear the other side of the story for that.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 12:56:07 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 10:58:58 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Does anyone here know anything at all about what actually happened?

All there seems to be is one or two quotes without much context.

I would suggest perhaps contacting the lady professor herself and getting the story straight before debating events we know next to nothing about.

We do know much more about the sordid history of climate science researchers. The context in which this story should be viewed.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 1:15:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 12:49:09 PM, desmac wrote:
At 8/17/2016 12:04:09 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/17/2016 10:34:37 AM, desmac wrote:

Does anyone have any evidence of this alleged "Hostility" towards Professor Zharkova?

Would the actual words of Professor Zharkova count?

Of course.

"Some of them were welcoming and discussing," she said in an interview with The Global Warming Policy Forum. "But some of them were quite " I would say " pushy."

And some went well beyond just "pushy."

"They were trying to actually silence us," said Zharkova. "Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our news release."
- Professor Valentina Zharkova