Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 12/10/2009 8:46:11 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Indeed. But when you hear ‘politicized’ what do you think? I think something dirty, corrupt and hidden. That word evokes a certain in response in all of us.
Besides, the libs and their enviro-wacko allies are going to freak out tomorrow all over again. I wonder if Al Gore has another poem he wants to recite?
Sarah said earlier in her op-ed that the science was politicized. I think that is what she probably meant when she referred to the environment being politicized.
Certainly no president should make deals based on politicized scientific data.
science should be free of politics.
It’ll never happen, IMO. Not in areas involving public policy, anyway.
Going through the comments, I find a lot of “attack the messenger”. Tripe like “where are Sarah Palin’s scientific credentrials.”
I am not a scientist. I am an engineer. In the state where I am licensed (Texas), fudging data is considered an ethics violation, resulting in suspension or loss of license, as a minimum. If it results in damage, injury, or loss of life, it can result in a felony conviction and prison.
I’m with you re politicized data, but I also like this quote from Thomas Sowell: “Facts do not speak for themselves. They speak for or against competing theories. Facts divorced from theories or visions are mere isolated curiosities.”
To draw an analogy, it is a fact that the current healthcare system, in many cases, is prohibitively expensive and overrun by bureaucracy. But we’ve seen very clearly that even when dealing with this basic fact, various thinkers and leaders have proposed vastly different, often competing theories. Likewise, while it’s certainly important to use accurate data whenever possible, neither accuracy nor inaccuracy guarantees the best policy decision.
Please see my post 9.
It is important to keep in mind, folks:
This has nothing to do with climate, and everything to do with money.
There was a big gravy train lining up, trillions of dollars worth, and does anyone think they are just going to let that money disappear without a fight?
Not.
On.
Your.
Life.
Politics should be free of the feeble minded.
Likewise, while it’s certainly important to use accurate data whenever possible, neither accuracy nor inaccuracy guarantees the best policy decision.
“Inaccurate data” = “non data.”
Additionally, it’s important for scientists to present data uncorrupted by their own desires to have it fit a previously held conclusion. To corrupt data for this reason is to commit fraud.
The comment section in the source article is good fun. A lot of leftards heads exploding. Here’s a great non-leftard post:
Can I join the Sarah Haters club?
It sounds like so much fun. You sit around your PC hitting the refresh button, hoping they publish an article about Sarah Palin. Maybe if you’re lucky they’ll publish one about Michelle Bachmann and you’ll get a twofer.
posted by purplepig on Dec. 10, 09 at 1:13 AM
“It’ll never happen, IMO. Not in areas involving public policy, anyway.”
Public policy should be based on the actual facts of the matter.
The issue here is government funding of research (which, with the possible exception of military research, it should not be doing), as well as the entire post-WWII establishment of the “peer review” process. Government grant money funneled through a panel of experts with entrenched views on “legitimate” ways to spend it stifles competition, criticism, and dissent within the scientific community...which is another way of saying that it does nothing but promote the views of the peer review panel and the outcome desired by government to justify its policies.
I had a brief talk about this issue with David Berlinski in New York a few weeks ago (though his topic was alternatives to Darwinian evolution). He agreed that so long as government funding and peer review were in place, all science will be “politicized.”
The AGW scam could never have taken root had dissenting scientists not been afraid to voice such dissent without fear of jeopardizing their careers and incomes. The only way to ensure that happens is to break the virtual monopoly government has on basic scientific research.
Excellent post, thank you.
It’s interesting that the Star Trib (Red Star) even posted this article. Very out of character. Hummmm.
What is this public policy you speak of? The public policy our leaders((cough)) are trying to create out of whole cloth via a junk science created problem? It's nothing more than a circle jerk: Our leaders((cough)), misappropriating OUR tax dollars to buy off those in the Scientific Community™ via grants and the like to identify a -- problem. This "problem" of course will require even more taxpayer $$$'s to attack the "problem".
You can bet your last nickel the shyster scientists at the CRU have been getting a steady supply of American greenbacks for the very best, uh, research. Propaganda ain't cheap but if it works it will be (our)money well spent to gain more control over our very lives and our daily bread. Nice work if you can get it...
We’re on the same side here, so I don’t think we’ll get anywhere arguing about this further. Have a good night.
True to the point of "consensus" albeit that consensus is not always correct.
And in the case of global warming, despite all the BS floated by Gore and the ever hungry for disaster media, their is no scientifc consensus on either the case that the world has warmed beyond natural cycles, or that humans cause that warming.
This is all about a money and power grab --- nothing else.
It's all a sham.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.