Scientists hit by climate doubt fallout

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 21 Feb 2010, 08:25

The Independent - 20/02/10

Fallout from a loss of public confidence in climate science is affecting other fields of research, a top US academic claimed.

American opinion polls point to a general deterioration in people's faith in science, according to Dr Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences.

Article continues ...

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 21 Feb 2010, 12:57

It's because science has a habit of telling people things they don't like to hear, e.g. pesticides give you cancer, you're running out of soil, the world is more than 4,004 years old, a family of eight eats more than a family of four, we're not the centre of the universe, etc etc. I mean, who wants to shell out their hard-earned to hear stuff like that? Especially if, like 3 million Americans, you've just lost the roof over your head.

jcw · Post by **jcw** » 22 Feb 2010, 14:42

This is not surprising.

If some climatologists misrepresent data, it is natural to wonder how many do. How far does it extend? Did interference with the peer-review process succeed? How extensive might it be?

For the general public it is natural for them to wonder how far it extends across the sciences in general.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 23 Feb 2010, 01:52

Creationism is much easier to understand, and things have to be simple in the Mid West, and it's all in one book as well, the Bible. If it's in the bible it must be true.

Unless there's a conflict with the Koran of course, and I'll leave it up to you to decide which is correct.

And of course there are the Hindu writings as well. And Buddhist, and ....

I suppose one of them might be right.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 23 Feb 2010, 02:31

kenneal wrote: I suppose one of them might be right.

All of them are right.

All of them are wrong.

jcw · Post by **jcw** » 23 Feb 2010, 17:37

kenneal wrote:Creationism is much easier to understand, and things have to be simple in the Mid West, and it's all in one book as well, the Bible. If it's in the bible it must be true.

Unless there's a conflict with the Koran of course, and I'll leave it up to you to decide which is correct.

And of course there are the Hindu writings as well. And Buddhist, and ....

I suppose one of them might be right.

Off topic.

You undermine your credibility by failing entirely to address the question.

eatyourveg · Post by **eatyourveg** » 23 Feb 2010, 17:55

jcw wrote:
kenneal wrote:Creationism is much easier to understand, and things have to be simple in the Mid West, and it's all in one book as well, the Bible. If it's in the bible it must be true.

Unless there's a conflict with the Koran of course, and I'll leave it up to you to decide which is correct.

And of course there are the Hindu writings as well. And Buddhist, and ....

I suppose one of them might be right.
Off topic.

You undermine your credibility by failing entirely to address the question.

So people are losing faith in science. Nature abhors a vacuum, something will fill the gap and religion has to be in the running.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 23 Feb 2010, 19:55

jcw wrote:This is not surprising.

If some climatologists misrepresent data, it is natural to wonder how many do. How far does it extend? Did interference with the peer-review process succeed? How extensive might it be?

For the general public it is natural for them to wonder how far it extends across the sciences in general.

Except that climatologists did not misrepresent data and didn't interfere with peer-review process.

Keep this a strawman-free zone please.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 23 Feb 2010, 22:54

UndercoverElephant wrote:
kenneal wrote: I suppose one of them might be right.
All of them are right.

All of them are wrong.

He he UE. You took the words out of my mouth.

On the deepest level, all religions say the same thing - i.e. there is an realm of existence beyond appearances. In this they are (IMO) all right.

However, the mystical insights that religions are founded on invariably get debased and misinterpreted by those who haven't made the effort to experience them themselves. Then you get silly, arbitrary dogmas.

Of course there is more to it than that, but I think that is one valid way of looking at it.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 24 Feb 2010, 08:22

Ludwig wrote: On the deepest level, all religions say the same thing - i.e. there is an realm of existence beyond appearances. In this they are (IMO) all right.

But probably all wrong.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 24 Feb 2010, 15:53

Ludwig wrote:However, the mystical insights that religions are founded on invariably get debased and misinterpreted by those who haven't made the effort to experience them themselves. Then you get silly, arbitrary dogmas.

Of course there is more to it than that, but I think that is one valid way of looking at it.

The problem with the mainstream religions is that they were all devised a couple of thousand or so years ago for conditions extant at that time. Living conditions and requirements have changed but the religions haven't.

There were probably good reasons for not eating pork in the Middle East 2k years ago. There was plenty of space to "go forth and multiply" when the world population was a few million. There was probably good reason to cover your body completely when you were surrounded by men who had no self control at the site of a women. Worshipping the elephant god has slightly less relevance when you live in Southall.

There are still good reasons why "thou shalt not kill, steal or commit adultery". It is a very good idea to "love thy neighbour as thyself". We should sometimes remember that on these threads.

Perhaps there should be another Commandment to plant two trees for every one that you cut down. And another which dplores the dumping of one's pollution on another. Perhaps we should only be allowed to fly once a year.

Maybe the bible should be interpreted as a 4000 year old explanation of how to live your life written with the knowledge available at that time. If you really are a Creationist shouldn't you be living as the Amish do because, according to the bible, cars don't exist; not does electricity; no oil or gas; should you be using metal tools or indeed metal anything. The bible was written in the stone age, wasn't it?. I won't go on.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 24 Feb 2010, 16:52

Ludwig wrote:On the deepest level, all religions say the same thing - i.e. there is an realm of existence beyond appearances. In this they are (IMO) all right.

Though, strictly speaking 'existence' can only be applied to the realm of appearance. A lot of problems lie in speaking about "that which cannot be spoken about",

Peter.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 24 Feb 2010, 17:53

Last week's Food Programme on Radio 4 was about helal meat. It seems that the instructions on how to slaughter an animal were given out of respect to the animal and for welfare reasons. The prescribed method of slaughter was the best at that time with the knowledge and technology available. Now we have better (for the animal) methods which the Prophet would presumably have embraced had he been around today. Sadly, many of his followers take his words as definitive, rather than the principles behind them, and continue with sub-optimal slaughter methods.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 24 Feb 2010, 23:42

I have heard that some Halal slaughterers will stun animals before slitting the throat but no Jewish slaughterers will.

Halal was a continuation of the Jewish slaughter method which was bought in to stop people cutting the leg off an animal and cauterising the wound. This was a way of getting fresh meat so I'm told. I'm not sure how true this story is as you can only do it once per animal. An animal can get around fairly well on three legs but not two, unless the animal is human of course.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 25 Feb 2010, 07:55

There may be some truth in that too, Ken. Again, it accords with the idea that the rules about slaughtering were introduced to ensure animal welfare, as far as was possible at the time. So the people who stick to the letter of the rules, now that better understanding and technology exists, are acting contrary to the original intention of the rules.