Science is Broken

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No, not a strawman. Disproving statements that have been fed to the public, through the media, by the greenies. Shit, even advertisements are full of carbon footprint/global warming reminders. If you repeat a lie often enough...

If this site is reactionary to mainstream beliefs and not beliefs held in the scientific community, why is the site named "Science is Broken"? The entire point of the site is trying to show that the scientific community is corrupt and has an agenda while trying to disprove beliefs held by the public, not the scientific community. That is an argument flaw and a strawman. If the site was trying to disprove common misconceptions about global warming, I would agree that the arguments are not strawmen, but since it is an attempt to disprove the scientific community with public misconception, it becomes one.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The common misconceptions about global warming are stemming from broken science, "scientists" with an agenda, that honest scientists can't refute without risking their funding and careers.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by DanaC

True tho. Of course it helps that the Church of England is a religious organisation based primarily on tea, jam and scones :P

Cake or death?

[Shawnee123]

Every time I see this thread title, I get that damn Cat Stevens song in my head.

[classicman]

Well said Bruce - To that end, what if the media decides what "science" will be newsworthy...

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Every time I see this thread title, I get that damn Cat Stevens song in my head.

You hear "morning has broken", I hear "silence is golden"

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The common misconceptions about global warming are stemming from broken science, "scientists" with an agenda, that honest scientists can't refute without risking their funding and careers.

What makes you say that support for global warming is "misconceptions" from "broken science", and infer that the scientists who interpret data that way are dishonest? I haven't seen irrefutable proof either way.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

What makes you say that support for global warming is "misconceptions" from "broken science", and infer that the scientists who interpret data that way are dishonest? I haven't seen irrefutable proof either way.

Thats the point, I believe. There is no irrefutable proof, yet many people are acting as though there is. Why is that?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The common misconceptions about global warming are stemming from broken science, "scientists" with an agenda, that honest scientists can't refute without risking their funding and careers.

That has more to do with our media setup as a whole instead of science because that is applicable to politics, economics, etc as well. Legitimate political analysis share very little with the views being spewed by CNN or FOX News, which would be considered mainstream. Economics works the same way as well. While I won't disagree that political forces influence environmental science, the biggest problem is that the mainstream gets their news from second or third hand sources and not first. So, if a scientist writes a paper that goes against the common misconceptions, it just won't pick up steam because the people with agendas (people with money and power) won't publicize it to a mainstream audience.

While skimming the website, the only name I saw was Al Gore. That would be like blaming the entire US political science field because Bill O'Reilly has the largest influence. As I said, I won't disagree that their are large flaws with agendas and science, but the largest problem I see is the communication between science and the mainstream, not the actual science itself. And that website does not address that issue at all.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I wish they'd quit the bullshit and just say we've got to develop alternative energy because we're going to run out of oil. When that happens the price of energy (and everything else) will skyrocket, and wars will be fought for what's left.
So we should use oil only for what's essential, like NASCAR.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

So we should use oil only for what's essential, like NASCAR.

Fuck NASCAR, they can switch to these.

Acceleration 0 to 60 mph in under 4 seconds Top Speed 125 mph (electronically limited)

So if they take off the electronic governor, what's the top speed? And this is the first generation of the Tesla.