• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Someone Please Explain Banning Scientists From Advising the EPA

DistrictDeacon said:
There is no voting on the SAB. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
pourdeac said:
With a board entirely stacked against them? LOL.

Balance the board...a little. Allow critics to make their case too. Have the "deciders" be as objective as possible. Be as transparent as possible. Do you seriously think that's a bad way to do things and build policy? Seriously? Amazing.
Click to expand...

What does "objective" mean in this context? A reasonable person? A reasonable scientist? I prefer scientific panels to be the most knowledgeable, not simply "objective" by some unknown standard.

A key oddity of our political age is the "need" for equal air time on point and counter-point for everything, regardless of the merits. No "controversy" faces this problem more than science. We must present "both sides" to issues where there is scientific consensus, despite the fact that scientists may have battled it out among each other for years prior to reaching consensus (or sometimes agreed from the start). Perhaps we should have a "gravity" panel to determine whether that "theory" is correct. Nuclear power, yes, an evil evil thing, despite having caused no radiation-related deaths in the United States to date (a few electrocutions here and there is all you'll find). Better give the opposition the microphone with an equal platform though, because it sounds scary.

If we want to be the most advanced nation in the world, we should act like it. I don't understand the hostility towards scientists. The ones I know certainly aren't paid off by liberal groups. If they wanted to get paid off, there are far deeper pockets with greater interests at stake.
 
deacz said:
What does "objective" mean in this context? A reasonable person? A reasonable scientist? I prefer scientific panels to be the most knowledgeable, not simply "objective" by some unknown standard.

A key oddity of our political age is the "need" for equal air time on point and counter-point for everything, regardless of the merits. No "controversy" faces this problem more than science. We must present "both sides" to issues where there is scientific consensus, despite the fact that scientists may have battled it out among each other for years prior to reaching consensus (or sometimes agreed from the start). Perhaps we should have a "gravity" panel to determine whether that "theory" is correct. Nuclear power, yes, an evil evil thing, despite having caused no radiation-related deaths in the United States to date (a few electrocutions here and there is all you'll find). Better give the opposition the microphone with an equal platform though, because it sounds scary.

If we want to be the most advanced nation in the world, we should act like it. I don't understand the hostility towards scientists. The ones I know certainly aren't paid off by liberal groups. If they wanted to get paid off, there are far deeper pockets with greater interests at stake.
Click to expand...

This.

To take pourdeac's stance you have to believe that the vague reputational risk in defying consensus or admitting one's work is flawed is a larger threat to objectivity than large amounts of cash money.
 
Last edited:
pourdeac said:
The SAB deliberates and arrives at recommendations. How prey tell do you think they do that? It's like any other committee. They vote....and in reports are supposed to include dissenting views. That's why critics want broader representation.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebCommittees/BOARD
Click to expand...

They don't vote. Their reports are consensus based, with minority views included, if needed. But dissenting views aren't required.
 
RChildress107 said:
To take pourdeac's stance you have to believe that the vague reputational risk in defying consensus or admitting one's work is flawed is a larger threat to objectivity than large amounts of cash money.
Click to expand...
It's not either or. Defying consensus in a field like climate "science" (or admitting it's flawed) means not getting large amounts of cash to do research...and the stature and salaries and fame that goes with it. Its like getting shunned. Look at the hostility towards ANY criticism of the system and/or the science on this thread? Out come the long knives and sarcastic graphics. Science is built on criticism yet every critic of/in this field is treated like a religious heretic....and believed to be "hostile to science" in general, which is ridiculous. This happens when the science gets politicized.

The billions in cash in this field is made possible by the government and politicians. The science has HUGE pressures not to go against their benefactors and advocates. The more the $$$ the more "group think" occurs, and climate "science" is huge money. Confronting that system is little different than trying to convince a UNC fan they cheated...same sort of responses.

There is no real consensus in this field. When scientists are polled about this, they have a pretty broad set of viewpoints, as they should. These CO2 theories can't be validated and are built on another theory (greenhouse) that can't be validated. That reality is slowly setting in....as REAL science hashes out the ins and outs of what is going on with the climate. The 97% thing came from an analysis of society memberships and the statements those societies make. I'm part of the 97% (more than once) in that analysis. We belong to societies for the stature, not for their politics.
 
Last edited:
DistrictDeacon said:
They don't vote. Their reports are consensus based, with minority views included, if needed. But dissenting views aren't required.
Click to expand...
So they arrive at a consensus without actually voting/agreeing on a consensus. Got it. So they defy physical laws too eh?

I know what they do. My wife write reports for them.
 
pourdeac said:
So they arrive at a consensus without actually voting/agreeing on a consensus. Got it. So they defy physical laws too eh?

I know what they do. My wife write reports for them.
Click to expand...

You have repeatedly shown that you have no idea how they operate. Please find evidence that the SAB has ever voted on an issue.
 
pourdeac said:
It's not either or. Defying consensus in a field like climate "science" (or admitting it's flawed) means not getting large amounts of cash to do research...and the stature and salaries and fame that goes with it. Its like getting shunned. Look at the hostility towards ANY criticism of the system and/or the scienkce on this thread? Out come the long knives and sarcastic graphics. Science is built on criticism yet every critic of/in this field is treated like a religious heretic....and believed to be "hostile to science" in general, which is ridiculous. This happens when the science gets politicized.

The billions in cash in this field is made possible by the government and politicians. The science has HUGE pressures not to go against their benefactors and advocates. The more the $$$ the more "group think" occurs, and climate "science" is huge money. Confronting that system is little different than trying to convince a UNC fan they cheated...same sort of responses.

There is no real consensus in this field. When scientists are polled about this, they have a pretty broad set of viewpoints, as they should. These CO2 theories can't be validated and are built on another theory (greenhouse) that can't be validated. That reality is slowly setting in....as REAL science hashes out the ins and outs of what is going on with the climate. The 97% thing came from an analysis of society memberships and the statements those societies make. I'm part of the 97% (more than once) in that analysis. We belong to societies for the stature, not for their politics.
Click to expand...

It's amazing that with the billions of dollars of profit each quarter, oil companies can't buy off more than a handful of climate scientists. Since as you hypothesizes, scientists will say anything for funding. Strange, isn't it.
 
pourdeac said:
It's not either or. Defying consensus in a field like climate "science" (or admitting it's flawed) means not getting large amounts of cash to do research...and the stature and salaries and fame that goes with it. Its like getting shunned. Look at the hostility towards ANY criticism of the system and/or the science on this thread? Out come the long knives and sarcastic graphics. Science is built on criticism yet every critic of/in this field is treated like a religious heretic....and believed to be "hostile to science" in general, which is ridiculous. This happens when the science gets politicized.

The billions in cash in this field is made possible by the government and politicians. The science has HUGE pressures not to go against their benefactors and advocates. The more the $$$ the more "group think" occurs, and climate "science" is huge money. Confronting that system is little different than trying to convince a UNC fan they cheated...same sort of responses.

There is no real consensus in this field. When scientists are polled about this, they have a pretty broad set of viewpoints, as they should. These CO2 theories can't be validated and are built on another theory (greenhouse) that can't be validated. That reality is slowly setting in....as REAL science hashes out the ins and outs of what is going on with the climate. The 97% thing came from an analysis of society memberships and the statements those societies make. I'm part of the 97% (more than once) in that analysis. We belong to societies for the stature, not for their politics.
Click to expand...

DD beat me to it but are you claiming that there is more money available to the individual scientist in supporting the consensus on climate change than there is in denying the consensus on behalf of big oil?
 
pourdeac said:
So they arrive at a consensus without actually voting/agreeing on a consensus. Got it. So they defy physical laws too eh?

I know what they do. My wife write reports for them.
Click to expand...


Out of curiosity, what does your wife do, and who is them?
 
pourdeac said:
There is no real consensus in this field. When scientists are polled about this, they have a pretty broad set of viewpoints, as they should. These CO2 theories can't be validated and are built on another theory (greenhouse) that can't be validated. That reality is slowly setting in....as REAL science hashes out the ins and outs of what is going on with the climate. The 97% thing came from an analysis of society memberships and the statements those societies make. I'm part of the 97% (more than once) in that analysis. We belong to societies for the stature, not for their politics.
Click to expand...

Or from a review of 12,000 abstracts from 1991-2011.

The only problem with the 97% figure is that it has led many people to believe there is an overwhelming consensus on the severity of climate change. It would be great if we could get to a point where both the scientific and political community could argue about that (and about what we should do about it). Instead the conversation is stuck right where some very wealthy and powerful people want it to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
RChildress107 said:
Or from a review of 12,000 abstracts from 1991-2011.

The only problem with the 97% figure is that it has led many people to believe there is an overwhelming consensus on the severity of climate change. It would be great if we could get to a point where both the scientific and political community could argue about that (and about what we should do about it). Instead the conversation is stuck right where some very wealthy and powerful people want it to be.
Click to expand...

+1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top