Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Climate Change, Vaccines, GMOs, Nuclear Power…
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 29, 2015 at 9:05 pm #816641
VBDParticipantI heard about this study today. Hits darn close to home for me:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/01/150129-public-opinion-aaas-health-education-science/
January 29, 2015 at 10:29 pm #821293
JoBParticipantscientists are already reaching out to teach those who will listen about science..
but it is pretty difficult to reach those who get their opinions about science from those who are uneducated or who have a political axe to grind.
first we have to destroy the mistaken notion that all opinions are equal
they aren’t. some are based on evidence and some aren’t
once upon a time we thought that mattered
January 30, 2015 at 12:35 am #821294
wakefloodParticipantHonestly, with the state of science and support of pseudo-science and outright lack of critical thought, does anyone here believe we could pull off the equivalent of the Apollo program anymore, even if we needed to??
Which of course we DO. It’s called renewable energy.
January 30, 2015 at 1:40 am #821295
VBDParticipantI think it all stems from a mistrust of power. It’s interesting how many of the topics in the story have political or religious aspects. Since when did science prefer a political point of view? Politics should have nothing to do with it, but apparently, it does. Or perhaps it’s not so much politics as it is belief.
People have developed an inability to distinguish between belief and a science. To even say “I believe in evolution”, shows that you are equating faith to evidence.
It’s also interesting that even though conservatives are usually the one’s being labeled as “anti-science”, the poll’s largest gap between scientists and non-scientists is an area being championed by liberals.
But I contend the real issue is trust. Increasingly, people don’t trust government, big business, or science. Every time I hear an objection to some prevailing scientific opinion, it’s certainly due to the idea that scientists are being influenced by big money/power. There is this fallacy that all science is funded by some special interest, and therefore corrupt.
January 30, 2015 at 2:43 am #821296
wsn00bParticipant@VBD: Great points, but if people really mistrust power and authority then why do they have a belief system (like religion) based on trusting powerful authority figure(s)? Is it just irrational judgement fear? Probably. I think it is more about delegating responsibility to beliefs/god(s) and not really applying critical thinking like wake flood mentions.
After thinking about this a lot, I mostly end up confused or end up calling these people lazy and dumb, which is the short version of my previous paragraph.
January 30, 2015 at 3:22 am #821297
VBDParticipantwsn00b, I think people LOVE religion, as long as it’s theirs. If it’s someone else’s, they hate it. Politics is the same way.
If you feel attached to an authoritative group, like a church, you will be inclined to more easily accept a broader common belief system. Which is obvious, I guess, since that’s what it’s all about. But where it get’s weird is when your belief system extends to things like climate change, which has nothing to do with ANY religion. If all your co-worshipers believe it’s false, you will too.
I think the GOP has really capitalized on that idea. If you can hook your constituents with the conservative moral platform, you can get them to accept your crazy economic policies too. And THEN make them all believe that scientists are a bunch of dirty liberals!
January 30, 2015 at 6:08 am #821298
elikapekaParticipantJanuary 30, 2015 at 10:24 am #821299
HMC RichParticipantFor Pete’s Sake. The conservative needs proof. We are stubborn for certain. Pure and Simple. And we see a lot of taxpayer dollars being used by institutions that either fairly effectively use the monies, or some that fudge the the data. Science is great but it is our right to ask whether or not the money being spent is being honestly used or is it just keeping a department from being closed at certain institutions. Not all universities or research institutions are run well. Its your money too. We are trying to help you too. You see that liberal cronyism is also capitalizing on science too. Don’t just blame one side. I believe both sides have points.
Look, recently NASA said there was only a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880. But like the IPCC with the UN, some of the data was fudged. Why, because of politics the data was fudged. That certainly is not what we want. We want true data. If the models would represent the data, then we would come on board. People who don’t vaccinate their kids are endangering their loved ones. Plenty of studies on Aspertame and the rumors of it being unhealthy just aren’t true. I won’t say it is healthy either but it works in the drinks I like but I trust the science behind it.
January 30, 2015 at 3:48 pm #821300
wakefloodParticipantThe conservative needs proof!
Stop. Just stop.
Science is about best available data because you can’t know everything at all times. But that’s why you don’t do real science by starting out with a desired outcome of your research.
If someone with an agenda decides to buy something produced by “scientists” that supports your agenda, it’s not science. It’s something more akin to propaganda.
Proof? In the power of self-delusion maybe.
January 30, 2015 at 4:17 pm #821301
VBDParticipantHMC Rich, thank you for providing a perfect example of my conjecture. By suggesting that the data is being “fudged” you have demonstrated the bias against scientists as being a bunch of paid off shills.
I fully agree, and have stated above, that both sides of the political spectrum play this special interest game to dismiss science that makes them uncomfortable. It does appear to me, however, that conservatives play the game more often.
You ask for proof, but would never accept it because you don’t like the source. Why not just admit that you just don’t trust science and technology and pack your bags for your trip back to the stone age?
Look, the VAST majority of scientists (climate or otherwise) are not shills. They are smart, hard working people, with strong adherence to the disciplines for which they’ve been trained.
Quit perpetuating this horrible myth.
January 30, 2015 at 4:41 pm #821302
JoBParticipantWhat does proof look like?
did you critically examine your “truth” before accepting it?
is suspicion.. whether founded or not… reason enough to dismiss data?
Is a lie that is repeated often enough proof?
it is obvious that we as a nation no longer have a common basis with which to examine “truth”
i can’t think of anything that saddens me more
there is such a huge gap between “I believe” and “i have reason to believe”
January 30, 2015 at 7:41 pm #821303
JTBParticipantThere is a perfect, telling irony in the quote HMC Rich uses with his user name here. In fact, there is a raging discussion that far too many individuals achieve success they did not in fact work for but gained by accidents of birth, failing to work as promised, gambling with other people’s money, and other socially and economically dysfunctional means not generally considered to be “work.” I’d say this is a clear indication his own standard for proof is less than rigorous.
But in HMCRich’s defense, I don’t think he really understands statistical methodology enough to determine for himself whether or not the data have been “fudged.” That’s just the term that was used in recycled articles shrieking about the confidence interval in one of the analysis used in the NASA report. Perhaps he can clarify if he considers correcting, refining or expanding data to be normal and valid methodology or procedures that should be considered “dishonest” to use the moral lexicon he injects into the discussion.
Of course the issue was the certainty that 2014 was warmer by a fraction of a degree than 2010 or 2005. So who frigging cares given the modest difference? Does it matter if a bullet enters the right atrium or the left? But quibbling about inconsequential details as if they somehow actually matter is something the anti-science crowd has perfected.
For anyone interested which hopefully includes HMC Rich, here is a scientific but not technical comment on the data analysis in question, one with an eye on the tendency for some to misunderstand it. Note the comment about the confidence intervals being discussed in the original NASA briefing.
“Odds and statistics, and odd statistics
Analyses of global temperatures are of course based on a statistical model that ingests imperfect data and has uncertainties due to spatial sampling, inhomogeneities of records (for multiple reasons), errors in transcription etc. Monthly and annual values are therefore subject to some (non-trivial) uncertainty. The HadCRUT4 dataset has, I think, the best treatment of the uncertainties (creating multiple estimates based on a Monte Carlo treatment of input data uncertainties and methodological choices). The Berkeley Earth project also estimates a structural uncertainty based on non-overlapping subsets of raw data. These both suggest that current uncertainties on the annual mean data point are around ±0.05ºC (1 sigma) [Update: the Berkeley Earth estimate is actually half that]. Using those estimates, and assuming that the uncertainties are uncorrelated for year to year (not strictly valid for spatial undersampling, but this gives a conservative estimate), one can estimate the odds of 2014 being a record year, or of beating 2010 – the previous record. This was done by both NOAA and NASA and presented at the press briefing (see slide 5).
In both analyses, the values for 2014 are the warmest, but are statistically close to that of 2010 and 2005. In NOAA analysis, 2014 is a record by about 0.04ºC, while the difference in the GISTEMP record was 0.02ºC. Given the uncertainties, we can estimated the likelihood that this means 2014 was in fact the planet’s warmest year since 1880. Intuitively, the highest ranked year will be the most likely individual year to be the record (in horse racing terms, that would be the favorite) and indeed, we estimated that 2014 is about 1.5 to ~3 times more likely than 2010 to have been the record. In absolute probability terms, NOAA calculated that 2014 was ~48% likely to be the record versus all other years, while for GISTEMP (because of the smaller margin), there is a higher change of uncertainties changing the ranking (~38%). (Contrary to some press reports, this was indeed fully discussed during the briefing). The data released by Berkeley Earth is similar (with 2014 at ~35%~46% (see comment below)). These numbers are also fragile though and may change with upcoming updates to data sources (including better corrections for non-climatic influences in the ocean temperatures). An alternative formulation is to describe these results as being ‘statistical ties’, but to me that implies that each of the top years is equally likely to be the record, and I don’t think that is an accurate summary of the calculation.”
– See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/01/thoughts-on-2014-and-ongoing-temperature-trends/#more-18042
January 30, 2015 at 8:59 pm #821304
VBDParticipantI was able to see the bias against scientists, and the lack of trust in governmental reporting, first hand.
I work environmental health and safety, and specialize in radiation. My laboratory examined samples following the Fukushima nuclear disaster. I set up some environmental monitoring and attempted to find some trace fallout. I found none. Nor did most others. A few folks found trace amounts of iodine, and it was exactly within the range the models suggested it should be present.
Although nothing fell from the sky near me, I was able to detect cesium on shipping containers that had arrived from Japan to local ports. It was a very small amount, practically insignificant, but I have the capability to detect extremely minute quantities. I had some colleagues check my results, and then communicated with the Washington Department of Health, as did many other independent labs across the state.
When the DOH gave their official statements to the public on the findings of radiation in the northwest, they were completely consistent with the findings of my lab and the others that I knew of in the state. I felt they did a very good job with the information dissemination.
However, the public response was amazing. There were many who simply thought it was a lie, and the radiation was going to make us all sick. I read that the government had told the scientists to withhold or cover-up their data.
I can say with absolute scincerity that I have never, in my 25 years of work, been told by my company or by the government to hide results or manipulate data. I have never had an exchange with a public official that questioned my data or rejected my results. We get inspected and are issued appropriated licenses. We are subject to fines if the rules are not adhered to. I have always gotten the impression that the DOH works in the best interest of the public’s health.
It’s sad that people’s mistrust of politicians has led to a mistrust of the entire system.
January 30, 2015 at 9:37 pm #821305
wakefloodParticipantVBD, thanks for the thoughtful and enlightening post.
I agree that we’ve got distrust going on and some of it is earned. Reaction to things like BP in the gulf, the coal slag disasters in the east, etc.
Things that some people were warning about BEFORE they became issues didn’t get airtime, and/or were called alarmists by enough media to make folks either disinterested or shrug their shoulders. And then…you can’t drink your water or eat your fish or…
And when it comes to radiation, you have Chernobyl still in many folks memory banks so it’s especially scary when you can’t see the potential issue.
As you say, the entire system is suspect and that’s not good.
January 30, 2015 at 11:09 pm #821306
JoBParticipantVBD.. are we still testing?
January 31, 2015 at 12:29 am #821307
waynsterParticipantinteresting now if only voters would vote this way….
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2015/01/30/poll-is-climate-change-denial-a-
then there’s those who tried…..lmao
January 31, 2015 at 1:12 am #821308
VBDParticipantJoB, I am no longer looking at what I was after the initial event. We continued monitoring shipping containers, and saw the detectible contamination disappear. After several months of zeros, we stopped.
But don’t fear; there is a network of air monitors spread around the US that are constantly monitoring. Here’s a link:
http://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/
As for specifically Fukushima radiation, the only real source of contamination is through the water runoff from the accident site. That has been diminishing as the pollution decays and dilutes. The best source for information on ocean monitoring and research is Woods Hole:
January 31, 2015 at 1:21 am #821309
VBDParticipantOh, but I should add that all the major ports have radiation detection at their gates. Basically it’s a big array of detectors that every truck drives though on its way out. These detectors will alarm if there is any radiation present. We got word of elevated levels after Fukushima, which is what prompted us to begin sampling in the first place.
The monitoring serves a duel purpose. One is for events like Fukushima, but the other is to discover any terrorist/dirty bomb threats.
January 31, 2015 at 2:00 am #821310
justadumbguyParticipantA couple of comments, in addition to distrust of politicians / gov’t there is a real distrust of the media all around both the political and cultural spectrum.
Regarding the quote that HMC Rich uses, the quote is true, the problem comes when folks mistake having money with success.
January 31, 2015 at 2:44 am #821311
JoBParticipantVBD.. thanks
i have a friend on the big island who regularly posts Fukushima runoff reports
January 31, 2015 at 4:24 pm #821312
waynsterParticipantJanuary 31, 2015 at 4:51 pm #821313
JoBParticipantwaynster
loved the joke
but don’t think the culprit is the internet
i suspect it can be found on the squawk box
and dad is the one who didn’t have the sense to change the channel :(
January 31, 2015 at 5:26 pm #821314
waynsterParticipantSo true Job…fox news can do that to you lmao…. :o)
January 31, 2015 at 8:14 pm #821315
JTBParticipantWith respect to HMC Rich’s comments about data being “fudged,” it’s worth noting that sometimes it actually is faked, deliberately misrepresented, or otherwise “fudged” in order to make a particular case. One of the more notable instances of the former is worth revisiting in light of the measles outbreak affecting unvaccinated people and the attendant public health challenge. Here is a link to a popular media report of the scandal involving the discredited research that was used to fuel the fear about autism and vaccination. fudging data
Wakefield got away with this for a long time which brings to mind that a number of the bogus research findings of note were perpetrated by individuals or small groups working in relative isolation from their peers. It is usually peer examination of research findings that exposes errors, oversights and, yes—fraud—in the original work. Of course, in the case of Wakefield’s research, no amount of evidence to the contrary or challenge to his methodology did much to alter the thinking of those disposed to embrace it as a matter of belief rather than science.
It is true that while deceptions like Wakefield’s has a tendency to foster skepticism or distrust of science on the part of many in the public, the fact of the matter is it is adherence to scientific standards the eventually exposes the deceit.
January 31, 2015 at 8:56 pm #821316
JoBParticipantclarification..
Dr. Andrew Wakefield … the author of the bogus study linking autism and vaccinations
not our own wakefield
who would never ever do such a thing
or pass along bogus info
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.