- Messages
- 17,334
- Reaction score
- 13,745
- # of dives
- 100 - 199
And another of them is from the Daily Mail AKA the Daily Fail, one of the less reputable rags in the UK
Next NASA Chief Nominee Doesn’t Believe in Climate Change
- Thread starter Sea Save Foundation
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
elbig
Contributor
Ok. So we have different views about credible sources. Did you read first one by the MIT professor?
Adam Grose
Contributor
[QUOTE="The hair on the back of my neck always raises a bit when an argument starts with "I believe"... More so if in a science or engineering or business setting.[/QUOTE]
Certainly, an argument will have more validity (at least in my mind) if it can be backed up with verifiable facts from credible sources. This is true whatever the setting is, be it scientific, engineering, business, or wherever. If you are going to make an argument, you had better be ready to back it up with facts.
Adam
Certainly, an argument will have more validity (at least in my mind) if it can be backed up with verifiable facts from credible sources. This is true whatever the setting is, be it scientific, engineering, business, or wherever. If you are going to make an argument, you had better be ready to back it up with facts.
Adam
I did. Dr. Lindzen is certainly qualified to offer insights into the science of climate change. However, his views do not fit with the extensive body of science supporting climate change.
Likewise, you can find physicians who say a diet high in saturated fats doesn't increase risk of heart disease. Most people understand, however, that those claims don't hold water.
Charred
Contributor
I have a Ph.D. in biochemistry and I lead a team of scientists.
To effectively lead scientists, you need to be a data-driven individual. You cannot operate on belief. Well you can, but then pretty soon you aren't leading a team of scientists anymore. Good scientists just won't work in an environment where data is ignored.
Irregardless of his actual stance on climate change, the fact that he believes something different than the data suggests makes him ill suited to lead a very large agency that is dominated by scienctists and engineers. Once you take the mindset that data can be selectively believed or not believed, you are are done in science.
Can you imagine the Congressional inquiry? "I acknowledge the data suggested the new rocket was unsafe, but I believe those scientists were biased so I believed the rocket was safe for use."
Exchange rocket for climate change, evolution, etc if you like.
To effectively lead scientists, you need to be a data-driven individual. You cannot operate on belief. Well you can, but then pretty soon you aren't leading a team of scientists anymore. Good scientists just won't work in an environment where data is ignored.
Irregardless of his actual stance on climate change, the fact that he believes something different than the data suggests makes him ill suited to lead a very large agency that is dominated by scienctists and engineers. Once you take the mindset that data can be selectively believed or not believed, you are are done in science.
Can you imagine the Congressional inquiry? "I acknowledge the data suggested the new rocket was unsafe, but I believe those scientists were biased so I believed the rocket was safe for use."
Exchange rocket for climate change, evolution, etc if you like.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 17,334
- Reaction score
- 13,745
- # of dives
- 100 - 199
We are increasingly becoming a society that can not differentiate facts from beliefs and opinions. The concept of "alternate facts" as Trump shill, KellyAnne Conway, put it, is indicative of the trend toward the "I believe, therefore it is true" mentality. Ignorance is not knowledge, and few are willing to put in the time or effort to do the indepth study of a subject to know the difference. So sad for our country.
rjgiddings
Contributor
Just gonna go out on a logical limb here for a bit... let's go ahead and suggest that Climate scientists have little to gain - financially- at getting their scientific findings discovered and then accepted by a politician.
They would gain some credibility within their peers, and if not a Ph.D. already could secure some sort of Ph.D. status - which in turn has it’s own merit and could also become lucrative. Most of these guys aren't looking for acceptance from Chevron, or Exxon.
Let’s suggest for a moment that Climate Scientists don’t even need Big Oil. Ok, fine. But Big Oil needs them. It needs them on their side of the fence.
The Green Movement is little grains of sand compared to the mountain sized petroleum mining entities like OPEC. Saudi Aramco, Exxonmobile, China National Petroleum Company.
I believe most of these scientists are truthful about what they’ve been researching and finding out about the planet getting warmer for a few dozen years now. Let’s italicize the word 'believe' and 'most'. Im standing by them.
When these guys run up against an entrenched oil-based economy here in the States, i.e. Conoco Philips, Anadarko Petroleum, and massive corporate oil interests with huge lobbying power in Washington DC ( think: suitcases of ca$h) and little weasel like men who can find a potential slimy governor who will tow the line of big oil + big business - at no matter what the cost...is anybody really surprised at the spin and the lies these dingbats will weave ? These oil interests are big enough to buy entire companies of scientists, and create their own image. They can in turn cast their own truth and project it onto you. If that’s not evil - then I don’t know what is.
Again- is anybody shocked that some dude from Oklahoma - a massive oil reserve state - represents oil companies, to the level where he gets appointed to head up NASA ? We live in the Land of Orange Julius now. Everything is up for sale.
Now excuse me while I go fill up my gas guzzling Nissan Xterra.
They would gain some credibility within their peers, and if not a Ph.D. already could secure some sort of Ph.D. status - which in turn has it’s own merit and could also become lucrative. Most of these guys aren't looking for acceptance from Chevron, or Exxon.
Let’s suggest for a moment that Climate Scientists don’t even need Big Oil. Ok, fine. But Big Oil needs them. It needs them on their side of the fence.
The Green Movement is little grains of sand compared to the mountain sized petroleum mining entities like OPEC. Saudi Aramco, Exxonmobile, China National Petroleum Company.
I believe most of these scientists are truthful about what they’ve been researching and finding out about the planet getting warmer for a few dozen years now. Let’s italicize the word 'believe' and 'most'. Im standing by them.
When these guys run up against an entrenched oil-based economy here in the States, i.e. Conoco Philips, Anadarko Petroleum, and massive corporate oil interests with huge lobbying power in Washington DC ( think: suitcases of ca$h) and little weasel like men who can find a potential slimy governor who will tow the line of big oil + big business - at no matter what the cost...is anybody really surprised at the spin and the lies these dingbats will weave ? These oil interests are big enough to buy entire companies of scientists, and create their own image. They can in turn cast their own truth and project it onto you. If that’s not evil - then I don’t know what is.
Again- is anybody shocked that some dude from Oklahoma - a massive oil reserve state - represents oil companies, to the level where he gets appointed to head up NASA ? We live in the Land of Orange Julius now. Everything is up for sale.
Now excuse me while I go fill up my gas guzzling Nissan Xterra.
Last edited:
The Daily Mail is the 2nd most circulated newspaper in the UK, like it or not.
Similarly, Fox News in the U.S. is quite consistently either the 1st or 2nd most viewed cable news network there, again, like it or not.
Distortion, assumption, or slander through bias creates a quite a bit of misconception, and in the case of the last US election, surprise.
Squeaky wheels are often rusty, and smooth ones usually run quiet.
Last edited:
Similar threads
