Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

[waldo]

Not really.

you're not addressing... the premise you put forward. That talking point presumes to suggest scientists views, at large, are shaped and predetermined by the outcomes funding sources are calling for.

in any case, in regards your 3 links:

- the first reflects upon the agenda-driven spin of the renowned denier organization, GWPF... notwithstanding the internal spending related link (to a GWPF page) is a 404-page not found return. Your first link carries no weight/credibility.

- your second link drops a dollar number without qualification... you have to follow a link to another web-site to read the same number provided (without qualification)... you have to follow another link to another web-site to find said qualification; that qualification being "climate change activities"

- your third link, the most directly representative (itself drawing from the Daily Howler... err, Daily Caller), does properly provide a legitimate U.S. government source link for reference costing/qualification. However, that limited qualification is broadly described as, "funding a wide range of programs, including scientific research, international climate assistance, incentivizing renewable energy technology and subsidies to renewable energy producers." Specific to your underlying "premise", the U.S. government link is to a document that fully, and properly, breaks out the costing... in the case of scientific research, for 2013 that amounts to ~ $2.5 billion dollars under the collective umbrella designation, "US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 13 U.S. government departments/agencies participate in USGCRP; e.g., NASA, NOAA, Department of Energy, Department of Interior, EPA.
​

your 3rd link speaks to, ultimately, the 1990 U.S. Congressional mandate for the USGCRP:

"to improve understanding of uncertainties in climate science, including the cumulative effects on the environment of human activities and natural processes, develop science-based resources to support policymaking and resource management, and communicate findings broadly among scientific and stakeholder communities"
​

for this isolated instance, to support your underlying premise, you'd need to further qualify that ~ $2.5 billion dollars in the context of that described USGCRP mandate as applied to the respective 13 U.S. government agencies participating in the USGCRP and their, in turn, respective complements of scientists working to support the USGCRP mandate.

 

[taxslave]

caught "manipulating" data? Citation request

All your posts are full of them. All of us have posted numerous articles proving this. The fact you chose to ignore anything not pushed by your religion is not our fault.

you're not addressing... the premise you put forward. That talking point presumes to suggest scientists views, at large, are shaped and predetermined by the outcomes funding sources are calling for.

in any case, in regards your 3 links:

- the first reflects upon the agenda-driven spin of the renowned denier organization, GWPF... notwithstanding the internal spending related link (to a GWPF page) is a 404-page not found return. Your first link carries no weight/credibility.

- your second link drops a dollar number without qualification... you have to follow a link to another web-site to read the same number provided (without qualification)... you have to follow another link to another web-site to find said qualification; that qualification being "climate change activities"

- your third link, the most directly representative (itself drawing from the Daily Howler... err, Daily Caller), does properly provide a legitimate U.S. government source link for reference costing/qualification. However, that limited qualification is broadly described as, "funding a wide range of programs, including scientific research, international climate assistance, incentivizing renewable energy technology and subsidies to renewable energy producers." Specific to your underlying "premise", the U.S. government link is to a document that fully, and properly, breaks out the costing... in the case of scientific research, for 2013 that amounts to ~ $2.5 billion dollars under the collective umbrella designation, "US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 13 U.S. government departments/agencies participate in USGCRP; e.g., NASA, NOAA, Department of Energy, Department of Interior, EPA.
​

your 3rd link speaks to, ultimately, the 1990 U.S. Congressional mandate for the USGCRP:

"to improve understanding of uncertainties in climate science, including the cumulative effects on the environment of human activities and natural processes, develop science-based resources to support policymaking and resource management, and communicate findings broadly among scientific and stakeholder communities"
​

for this isolated instance, to support your underlying premise, you'd need to further qualify that ~ $2.5 billion dollars in the context of that described USGCRP mandate as applied to the respective 13 U.S. government agencies participating in the USGCRP and their, in turn, respective complements of scientists working to support the USGCRP mandate.

Just how naive are you? Of course scientists views are shaped by whoever funds them. Or they seek funding from like minded sources. Just look at all the BS you C&P.

 

[damngrumpy]

One of the most significant reasons is they have lost their credibility
Politicians, Police and even Clergy have lost their place in society.
The reason is they all succumbed to abusing the trust they were given.
Police are becoming an unsavory lot in the eyes of many and its not
really a fair perspective. Politicians most are decent people who do
want to better their country. Politics has become about the game rather
than the betterment of society though. The clergy has become about
the politics of the faith rather than the message of the faith and the vision
ot the humble pastor has given way to the televised public speakers who
now parrot the message the masses want to hear and they are about the
money.
Now scientists. Some saddle up to ride with a governments political agenda
Some saddle up to ride with the anti or pro environmental movement
Some are affiliated with a particular spiritual agenda
Some are affiliated with corporations and the profit message is heard
In the midst of this there are many who want to know the truth and they are
the ones who don't get funded Any reason to be skeptical? If you are
listening to hear which brand of science they belong to you are not listening
for the truth in science. At some point the truth is too hard to find in the
message so you discount it all and that is where we are right now.
I have often said everything changed in public opinion the day Watergate
was exposed trust in all public institution took a nose dive

 

[coldstream]

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

Given the debacle and fraud surrounding the pseudoscience of Anthropogenic Global Warming, i think many people have learned to treat 'science'.. especially that backing radical political and philosophical agendas.. like environmentalism.. or homosexual legitimacy.. with a grain of salt.

There are many radical promoters of these causes, cloaked in the presumed objectivity of academia, who have no interest in science whatsoever. They comprise the gatekeepers at major universities, who exclude all who do not utterly submit to dictates of the political doctrine. It doesn't change the fact that their so called science is fabrication that takes a given result and selectively and arbitrarily works backward to support its cause.

All science is based on certain premises. We are spending billions now on Cosmological Research into the Big Bang, which has become the modern Creation Story, and which the academic establishment will broker no dissent. This comes at a time when the original simplicity of the Big Bang is continuously being undermined by new findings which must be incorporated into the original thesis, geometrically complicating its structure. Also at a time when we have not had a single practical utility from the research since the WW2. Once the link between technology and science is broken, the latter has lost its fundamental inspiration.

Oswald Spengler noted in Decline of the West that all science in late stage civilization would descend into number forms, abandon its proofs and utilities and manifest boundless belief systems. What we are seeing with Cosmology, and AGW, and behavioural sciences is a manifestation of a crumbling civilization.. which now relies on baseless mysticism and occult supersticions to support an ever more ethereal and corrupt world view.

 

[JLM]

All your posts are full of them. All of us have posted numerous articles proving this. The fact you chose to ignore anything not pushed by your religion is not our fault.



Just how naive are you? Of course scientists views are shaped by whoever funds them. Or they seek funding from like minded sources. Just look at all the BS you C&P.

I think poor old Waldo has a candle flickering!

 

[mentalfloss]

Row over sugar firms' links to scientists

Health editor, BBC News website
Sugar
Are scientists in the palms of the sugar industry?
A row has erupted about links between the sugar industry and scientists who advise government on obesity.

Campaigners argue the scientists are so heavily influenced by companies that Dracula is now "in charge of the blood bank".

The scientists concerned say it is wrong to assume they are biased and critics should "learn proper science".

Public Health England said it welcomed industry "listening to our best scientists".

The argument was sparked by a report on the issue in the British Medical Journal.

It claims Prof Susan Jebb - the government's obesity tsar, a University of Oxford academic and an expert in a recent three-part BBC documentary series on obesity - has attracted more than £1.3m of industry funding.

This includes money from Coca-Cola, Unilever and Cereal Partners.

The article says members of a government advisory panel - the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) - are supported by companies such as PepsiCo, Mars and Nestle.

It also claims that of the 40 scientists affiliated with SACN between 2001 and 2012, just 13 had no connections to the sugar industry.

BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee said the investigation showed there was a "network of relationships between key public health experts and the sugar industry".

She said "these sorts of links create bias" and "weaken public health efforts to tackle the harmful effects of sugar on the diet".

Dracula

Prof Simon Capewell, from the University of Liverpool and an adviser for the group Action on Sugar, told the BBC: "I was shocked, quite honestly; this is heart-breaking news and basically it appears a lot of people have been seriously misled."

He said there would be an "inherent conflict of interest" between profits and public health.

"It's like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank," he concluded.

But that is an "insult", "fundamentally wrong" and shows a "need to learn some proper science" according to Prof Ian MacDonald, who led a review of sugar guidelines last year.

The draft report, by SACN, said sugar added to food or naturally present in fruit juice and honey should account for 5% of energy intake - half the current recommendation.

He said the committee was clearly not biased as "that draft report is tougher on sugar than the World Health Organization report is, or any other report is".

He told the BBC News website he was "not embarrassed" at advising industry, but acknowledged the general public was "very sceptical".

"We're world-respected scientists whose opinions are provided to government and to industry; and those people use that information as they see fit," he said.

'Makes sense'

Prof Jebb defended her record, telling the BBC: "As a scientist my independence and personal credibility are crucial to me. Moreover, everything I do is aimed at improving public health."

She said there were times when it "makes good sense" to work with industry.

She cited one project funded by Coca-Cola that proved its product was ineffective as an aid to weight loss.

"If a company has genuine reason to believe their product or ingredient or programme works then it seems appropriate to me that they should fund a trial to prove it, ideally conducted by independent scientists," she added.

A spokesperson for SACN, in a statement issued through Public Health England, said: "We welcome that industry is listening to our best scientists who can tell them what harm sugar is doing to the nation's health."

Prof Jebb used to run the Medical Research Council's Human Nutrition Research unit.

Dr Frances Rawle, the head of policy at the Medical Research Council, said: "We ensure that all research we fund is free of any influence from those with whom we collaborate, be they a charity or a commercial organisation.

"We actively encourage researchers to work with industry and, where it's appropriate, we jointly fund many projects with industry partners or provide independent scientific expertise.

"Nutrition research is a good example because working with food and diet industry can help to directly translate high quality research into public health benefit."

Row over sugar firms' links to scientists - BBC News

 

[Zipperfish]

All science is based on certain premises. We are spending billions now on Cosmological Research into the Big Bang, which has become the modern Creation Story, and which the academic establishment will broker no dissent. This comes at a time when the original simplicity of the Big Bang is continuously being undermined by new findings which must be incorporated into the original thesis, geometrically complicating its structure. .

These two sentences contradict each other. If no dissent is brooked, then where are these new findings coming from. There was a major study in a major journal this week that was covered in all the major papers that proposes there was never a big bang, and that the universe is finaite in size adn therefore infinite in age.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

 

[waldo]

All your posts are full of them. All of us have posted numerous articles proving this. The fact you chose to ignore anything not pushed by your religion is not our fault.

"all of us"... just who is your "US"? In the whole time I've been here you've not posted a single damn thing... to substantiate a single damn thing. All you've got is your continual prattle (aka, your unsubstantiated opinion). When you're pressed to the point of supporting your inane opinion statements, you revert to this same ready-reach fall-back... where you claim, past posts have "covered it all". Of course, you're full of BS... YOU HAVE NO GAME. All you have is your continual drive-by routine, like this post of yours I'm quoting/replying to!

it was a simple request... one I've challenged you on before. You keep nattering on about "getting caught manipulating data". Somehow, you just can't seem to present even a single example of your said "getting caught". Go figure. Of course, even if you could find a smattering of said examples, the denier routine is to take an isolated incident/occurrence and play it up broadly and sweepingly as something indicative of the greater whole. It's what dumbass deniers like you do... cause YOU GOT NO GAME!

Just how naive are you? Of course scientists views are shaped by whoever funds them. Or they seek funding from like minded sources. Just look at all the BS you C&P.

prove it/show it... support that denier talking point. I just went through a post that presumed to do just that... the one single representative link from that post showed an actual 2013 cost-breakdown estimate for the U.S. government federal support for scientific research related to climate science associated with the U.S. Congressional mandated USGCRP umbrella project that draws from 13 U.S. government departments/agencies.

as I said in summation, "for this isolated instance, to support your underlying premise, you'd need to further qualify that ~ $2.5 billion dollars in the context of that described USGCRP mandate as applied to the respective 13 U.S. government agencies participating in the USGCRP and their, in turn, respective complements of scientists working to support the USGCRP mandate." Have a go at this, hey taxi... sure you can! Find all those related funded proposals and show that the proposals were asking for research findings to line up with a pre-determined want/result... one that wasn't fully qualified to that end. Sure you can, taxi... sure you can! C'mon taxi, step-up FOR ONCE! :mrgreen:

I think poor old Waldo has a candle flickering!

drive-by arteeest!

 

[MHz]

These two sentences contradict each other. If no dissent is brooked, then where are these new findings coming from. There was a major study in a major journal this week that was covered in all the major papers that proposes there was never a big bang, and that the universe is finaite in size adn therefore infinite in age.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

The bang was the noon show.
The beginning of the gathering of the material that we estimate that is around us today started at 'midnight', the same midnight we are headed for if the expanding universe is valid. At some point an exploding star is so far away from the next star that no new stars will be formed and the matter remains the same but light cannot be produced to you are in the 'void'.
The matter that caused the big bang started to gather about 40B years ago and the two 'objects' became the singular universe we know today.

The place on the other side of 'the void' (as that collapses inward) is the universe that if full of light and warmth and that heat causes an expansion that is visible as light, at a certain height it becomes cold and that cooling causes a contraction that recreates the original light and heat and that is perpetual. The inner light might be timed to that other event.

drive-by arteeest!

First computer I ever owned fried the HD when it was running a DOS gravity program that allowed you to change the weights and direction a bit. Had to put the cylinders ??wtf and a weekend later it was fully automated in the next version, lol

 

[Cannuck]

It makes sense to me that some people here believe that there is bias inherent in the scientific community. The people that seem to believe that are generally the most biased people here. It's not surprising that they assume the rest of the world has the same view as them.

 

[darkbeaver]

It makes sense to me that some people here believe that there is bias inherent in the scientific community. The people that seem to believe that are generally the most biased people here. It's not surprising that they assume the rest of the world has the same view as them.

You seem to believe that scientist are immune to the power of MONEY which has shown over eons of time to be the perfect solvent, breaking down the bond of community and laws both moral and legal. You represent in one sentence the whole specticle of rampant idiotic scientism bent on burning the unbeliever on alters of error.

 

[Cannuck]

You seem to believe that scientist are immune to the power of MONEY...

Don't be so silly. You seem to think everything is about the money. Thanks for backing up my point.

 

[darkbeaver]

Don't be so silly. You seem to think everything is about the money. Thanks for backing up my point.

You are right I did forget to mention sex.

 

[mentalfloss]

Don't be so silly. You seem to think everything is about the money. Thanks for backing up my point.

This is one of our biggest failings as a society - this idea of attaching a dollar bill to every single action someone makes.

 

[Cannuck]

This is one of our biggest failings as a society - this idea of attaching a dollar bill to every single action someone makes.

Most people are not motivated by money. I think one problem is that most people without money actually believe that those that have money are motivated by it. I think people project too much.

 

[JLM]

Most people are not motivated by money. I think one problem is that most people without money actually believe that those that have money are motivated by it. I think people project too much.

Of course most people with an I.Q. above 4.5 know that pretty well all endeavours in life are largely driven by the almighty dollar.

 

[darkbeaver]

This is one of our biggest failings as a society - this idea of attaching a dollar bill to every single action someone makes.

These money crubbing institutions are hardly to be confused with individual "someones" are they? As well we should be attentive to the constant BEGGING from them MOAR MUNNY!

 

[waldo]

This is one of our biggest failings as a society - this idea of attaching a dollar bill to every single action someone makes.

GW/AGW/CC deniers can't refute the prevailing science, so... they revert to bombastic, blustering attempts to paint that prevailing science as "bias tainted"; claiming that the scientific findings are aligned with funding drivers calling for those very same findings........ the prevailing science findings that deniers can't refute.

 

[captain morgan]

GW/AGW/CC deniers can't refute the prevailing science.

Been there, done that.

.. Hell, the most effective refutation comes in the form of the many (and I mean a sh*t load) of failed models, wrong projections and teh many frauds by the truther set.

 

[darkbeaver]

GW/AGW/CC deniers can't refute the prevailing science, so... they revert to bombastic, blustering attempts to paint that prevailing science as "bias tainted"; claiming that the scientific findings are aligned with funding drivers calling for those very same findings........ the prevailing science findings that deniers can't refute.

Prevailing science! Are you mad? So is it your opinion that the contemporary science practice is entirely above the power and influence of money and the priests representing these various disiplines would rather cut off thier offending hands than misrepresent those same disiplines? I can hardly fathom our great fortune to be presented so fully with your religious convictions. Scientism has a great believer and leader in your person sir. I cannot help but think that you are in their service with the mission of fattening and protecting thier purses.

Been there, done that.

.. Hell, the most effective refutation comes in the form of the many (and I mean a sh*t load) of failed models, wrong projections and teh many frauds by the truther set.

Waldo is himself a failed model personified. And as the sun of reason and truth rises upon us his slushy thinking will run down the street into the disposal orifice with the rest of the error of this age.