Tomorrow is the March for Science. Who's going?

[whichphilosophy]

Scientists (or "experts" in all fields) are to blame for the anti-science mood. This is a backlash against the scientists/experts who behave like snobs by thinking that the public must believe everything they say and never question it.

The best current example of this is the attitude that there is no need to debate climate change, because "the scientists" or the experts have established that this is happening, and so the latest left-wing political measures cannot be debated but must be accepted on faith, by the public, and so you are anti-science if you question whatever the liberals are now proposing on the environment.

As long as we continue to have these "experts" impose their conclusions without debating them in detail, because they're the experts and we can't understand it because we're not enlightened like they are, then there will continue to be a public backlash against "science" -- or rather, against their program for changes.

To prove that they are not these elitist snobs, they must be willing to hold public debates with anyone who wants to challenge their conclusions.


The psuedo-science of PEER REVIEW

They refuse to do this. They have turned down many debates with people who challenge them, and the only excuse they offer for refusing is that the challengers are not qualified, or are not "experts" like they are, and they use smokescreen rhetoric, such as "peer-review," and say that the only ones qualified to debate the issue are other "peer-reviewed" experts like themselves.

This snob attitude has to change first, in order for the public sentiment to change back to 100% support of science, instead of only 80-90%.

No one is really anti-science. Everyone knows that we need science and that we need to make changes based on the real data and findings. But many do not believe the "scientists" whose only argument is:

"I'm the expert, and if you disagree it's because you're a FLAT-EARTHER and are too ignorant to understand the facts, so just believe whatever I say without questioning it."

If we spent our time debating every bit of single scientific research nothing would move forward in just about any area of research.

 

[Toni]

I marched in DC, where the crowd size was in tens of thousands, in addition to supporters lining the route. It was wonderful and moving but even more moving to me are the posts from supporters who were not able to travel to an 'official' march but held their own, by themselves or in small groups, sometimes in wheel chairs. It was relatively easy for me to march in DC, surrounded by tend of thousands of people who shared my passionate belief in the value and need for science, especially publicly funded science , and the free and open exchange if information and ideas--and results. To me, those who stood up in difficult circumstances, often in areas hostile to science an who shared their support for the larger cause: that is true courage. They are my heroes!

And AA: truly cool that you were a speaker!

 

[Toni]

Scientists (or "experts" in all fields) are to blame for the anti-science mood. This is a backlash against the scientists/experts who behave like snobs by thinking that the public must believe everything they say and never question it.

The best current example of this is the attitude that there is no need to debate climate change, because "the scientists" or the experts have established that this is happening, and so the latest left-wing political measures cannot be debated but must be accepted on faith, by the public, and so you are anti-science if you question whatever the liberals are now proposing on the environment.

As long as we continue to have these "experts" impose their conclusions without debating them in detail, because they're the experts and we can't understand it because we're not enlightened like they are, then there will continue to be a public backlash against "science" -- or rather, against their program for changes.

To prove that they are not these elitist snobs, they must be willing to hold public debates with anyone who wants to challenge their conclusions.


The psuedo-science of PEER REVIEW

They refuse to do this. They have turned down many debates with people who challenge them, and the only excuse they offer for refusing is that the challengers are not qualified, or are not "experts" like they are, and they use smokescreen rhetoric, such as "peer-review," and say that the only ones qualified to debate the issue are other "peer-reviewed" experts like themselves.

This snob attitude has to change first, in order for the public sentiment to change back to 100% support of science, instead of only 80-90%.

No one is really anti-science. Everyone knows that we need science and that we need to make changes based on the real data and findings. But many do not believe the "scientists" whose only argument is:

"I'm the expert, and if you disagree it's because you're a FLAT-EARTHER and are too ignorant to understand the facts, so just believe whatever I say without questioning it."

What a maroon.

There is far too much science illiteracy and far too much of people who cling to the fantasy that scientists know nothing because the illiterates and those with a political axe to grind cannot or will not understand basic research,.

 

[untermensche]

Scientists (or "experts" in all fields) are to blame for the anti-science mood. This is a backlash against the scientists/experts who behave like snobs by thinking that the public must believe everything they say and never question it.

The best current example of this is the attitude that there is no need to debate climate change, because "the scientists" or the experts have established that this is happening, and so the latest left-wing political measures cannot be debated but must be accepted on faith, by the public, and so you are anti-science if you question whatever the liberals are now proposing on the environment.

As long as we continue to have these "experts" impose their conclusions without debating them in detail, because they're the experts and we can't understand it because we're not enlightened like they are, then there will continue to be a public backlash against "science" -- or rather, against their program for changes.

To prove that they are not these elitist snobs, they must be willing to hold public debates with anyone who wants to challenge their conclusions.


The psuedo-science of PEER REVIEW

They refuse to do this. They have turned down many debates with people who challenge them, and the only excuse they offer for refusing is that the challengers are not qualified, or are not "experts" like they are, and they use smokescreen rhetoric, such as "peer-review," and say that the only ones qualified to debate the issue are other "peer-reviewed" experts like themselves.

This snob attitude has to change first, in order for the public sentiment to change back to 100% support of science, instead of only 80-90%.

No one is really anti-science. Everyone knows that we need science and that we need to make changes based on the real data and findings. But many do not believe the "scientists" whose only argument is:

"I'm the expert, and if you disagree it's because you're a FLAT-EARTHER and are too ignorant to understand the facts, so just believe whatever I say without questioning it."

The debate took place a long time ago.

I went to a lecture by Carl Sagan in 1985. He spoke of the state of the science at that time. The debate was over and there was time to do something.

But with business in control of the country there was nothing anybody could do.

And what business did in response to the science was create a bunch of phony science. They muddied the water that was clear a long time ago, so sycophants to corporate greed today could say there was something to debate.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If we spent our time debating every bit of single scientific research nothing would move forward in just about any area of research.

We DO debate every bit of scientific research. That's what peer review is.

Thing is, it gets to a point where further debate, without introducing new evidence, or if arguing only because the conclusion is undesirable, is not productive. But that's not to say that debate is closed simply because hey we're scientists and you're not so shut the fuck up.

Lumpy just has no idea what he's talking about.

.....again.

 

[Trausti]

Not bad:

Oh dear:

 

[thebeave]

Well, to be fair, it was quite clear from the get-go that the March for Science would not be rolling out the welcome mat for white males:

 

[barbos]

Not bad:

To be fair. media is not to blame for that, "scientists" or rather the current system of shameless self-promotion are.

 

[blastula]

Well, to be fair, it was quite clear from the get-go that the March for Science would not be rolling out the welcome mat for white males:



View attachment 10787

From the pictures I've seen, white males were well represented.

 

[RavenSky]

I was at the Miami March for Science.

 

[Bomb#20]

Stop babbling. No one proposed that a protest is only valid when a group of protesters have homogenous and ideal motives.

So what is the right proportion?

For purposes of truth in advertising, I'd think it's inappropriate to call your march a march "for science" if most of the marchers are really just marching against Trump. YMMV.

You're talking as though it makes no difference whether the number with valid motives is 90% or 10%.

It doesn't. It is stupid to insist that people are 100% pure in their motives.

What's your basis for claiming it doesn't make any difference whether the number with valid motives is 90% or 10%? Is "It is stupid to insist that people are 100% pure in their motives." your basis? If so, that's an invalid inference. And you appear to be insinuating that I'm insisting that people are 100% pure in their motives. So quote me.

Calling the majority of the protesters "upset with the accelerating trend of substituting ideology and stupidity" is about as accurate as call[ing the majority of the protesters at an antiabortion march "pro-life" -- no doubt a few of them are, but the ones who favor wars and executions are not pro-life.

You are responding to a stupid strawman.

I was responding to a stupid post. If you are contending that your post was also a strawman, I won't dispute the point.

Likewise, no doubt you know somebody who really is upset with the accelerating trend of substituting ideology and stupidity. But scratch an average marcher and you're going to find a person who's upset with the accelerating trend of substituting ideology and stupidity provided it's rightist ideology and stupidity, but who never had a problem with the formerly accelerating trend of substituting leftist ideology and stupidity.

Do you have any evidence to support your conjecture about the average marcher?

Familiarity with the thought processes exhibited by my fellow Americans.

Do you recall the thread where you had a meltdown because a poster mocked Trump supporters for believing that the unemployment rate had risen? Not only did you promote an evidence-free depiction of what Trump supporters believed and you castigated people for generalizing about Trump supporters. Do you realize that you are now engaging in the same behavior with an evidence-free depiction of the average marcher while you castigate the group ? Which means that you are actually guilty of the same hypocrisy that you believe of the "average marcher".

I recall the thread you're referring to; I also recall its content. You are grossly misrepresenting it; but then you were already grossly misrepresenting that thread while it was still going on. If you think you have a valid argument that I'm being a hypocrite, try presenting it without relying on alt-facts.

 

[Bomb#20]

I just don't understand the obsession of the march organizers with making identity politics a major issue with a march that's supposed to be about science. Is there a big problem with minorities, gays, women, etc not being allowed to participate in science, whether in schools, colleges or as a career? Are white men linking arms around science research labs chanting, "Whites Only"? Are people protesting speeches by Neil DeGrasse Tyson because he's black? Or Stephen Hawking because he's disabled? No...in fact they're the two biggest "rock stars" in science today. Colleges are begging (not shunning) for women and minorities to enroll in STEM programs. Tons of STEM scholarships are available specifically oriented to, them and only them. And when it comes to STEM careers or teaching, women and minorities are preferred by employers, all other things being equal. Seems to me the march organizers are just trying to create drama or promote their identity politics propaganda.

Found another one for your collection...

It's been an interesting week for people who work in public relations.

United Airlines dragged a screaming passenger off one of its planes, injuring and bloodying him in the process. Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, claimed that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons, apparently forgetting that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in gas chambers.

Not to be outdone, the national organizers for the March for Science said, "Hold my beer, and watch this."

March for Science Defends ISIS

Today, the official March for Science Twitter account criticized the Trump Administration for bombing ISIS, claiming that the gigantic bomb we dropped on the terrorists is an "example of how science is weaponized against marginalized people."

After being mocked on Twitter, they deleted it. Unfortunately for them, Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center screen capped it. And just like a latent herpes infection, screen caps live forever.

http://acsh.org/news/2017/04/13/hold-my-beer-march-science-defends-isis-marginalized-people-11131

 

[Mumbles]

I'm all for making the march inclusive to anyone that wants to join. Science is, and should be, for everyone to participate in. Who is saying that only "professional scientists" should march? Certainly not me. I just don't understand the obsession of the march organizers with making identity politics a major issue with a march that's supposed to be about science. Is there a big problem with minorities, gays, women, etc not being allowed to participate in science, whether in schools, colleges or as a career? Are white men linking arms around science research labs chanting, "Whites Only"? Are people protesting speeches by Neil DeGrasse Tyson because he's black? Or Stephen Hawking because he's disabled? No...in fact they're the two biggest "rock stars" in science today.

Maybe you've heard of this guy named Bill Nye...

Colleges are begging (not shunning) for women and minorities to enroll in STEM programs. Tons of STEM scholarships are available specifically oriented to, them and only them.

Compared to the total amount of scholarship money available, not really. If anything, it's industry that has been pushing STEM, and even then in high schools, which is where the biggest roadblocks are.

And when it comes to STEM careers or teaching, women and minorities are preferred by employers, all other things being equal. Seems to me the march organizers are just trying to create drama or promote their identity politics propaganda.

At admissions...again, not so much. Folks are far more likely to look to MIT, Umich, or Columbia than anything else. I've rarely seen companies partnering with, say, Howard.

Am I being overly sensitive about what happened to this guy by some SJWs?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...made-me-cry-too-with-rage-at-his-abusers.html

You most likely are. He did violate dress code, the shirt was inappropriate (are you kidding? Hell our internal conference requires male presenters to wear suits), the controversy died out long ago.

or this guy?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-hung-out-to-dry-interview-mary-collins

Certainly not anything I would have said as a representative of any organization. So again, yes - you're being too sensitive if you're upset that someone who doesn't watch their damn mouth like everyone else does is being somehow persecuted (or substitute your word of choice here).

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

climate scientists ducking debate with global warming deniers

The psuedo-science of PEER REVIEW

They refuse to do this. They have turned down many debates with people who challenge them, and the only excuse they offer for refusing is that the challengers are not qualified, or are not "experts" like they are, and they use smokescreen rhetoric, such as "peer-review," and say that the only ones qualified to debate the issue are other "peer-reviewed" experts like themselves.

You assume that these people don't have better things to do than to perpetually argue with people who don't believe their work or put forth the conspiracy theories. The whole point of peer review is to have somebody check your work.

Everything should be checked. What's phony about "peer-review" is that this cliché is used as an excuse to reject a debater as unqualified to present a case, and so his side of the issue is summarily dismissed without being considered.

Of course it's good to do the "peer review," but not to disqualify the debate challenger because he has not been "peer-reviewed," as they are often disqualified. Instead of censoring his views, they should just get the "peer-review" (or equivalent) done so the debate can take place. Or if no "peer" is willing to "review" him, then whose fault is that?

If we spent our time debating every bit of single scientific research nothing would move forward in just about any area of research.

Only those bits about which there is disagreement should be debated. But including disagreement from non-professionals or persons who are knowledgeable but uncredentialed.

There is far too much science illiteracy and far too much of people who cling to the fantasy that scientists know nothing because the illiterates and those with a political axe to grind cannot or will not understand basic research.

The problem is usually that the scientists don't explain it clearly, not that the public cannot or will not understand it. Of course some of the scientists themselves may be poor explainers, but if their findings are legitimate, it must be possible for someone to explain it to average folks.

The debate took place a long time ago.

I went to a lecture by Carl Sagan in 1985. He spoke of the state of the science at that time. The debate was over and there was time to do something.

"The debate" is never over. It continues forever, as long as someone still disagrees.

But with business in control of the country there was nothing anybody could do.

Business is generally very pro-science.

And what business did in response to the science was create a bunch of phony science.

That's fine if you can prove it. But that means the debate continues, and is not over. The phony part is claiming the debate is over and so must end, and dismissing the "deniers" as unfit to present a case because they're on the wrong side.

They muddied the water that was clear a long time ago, . . .

What's "clear" to you is not "clear" to the other guy.

. . . so sycophants to corporate greed today could say . . .

Name-calling doesn't advance science.

. . . there was something to debate.

You're always on the wrong side if you say there's nothing to debate.

If we spent our time debating every bit of single scientific research nothing would move forward in just about any area of research.

We DO debate every bit of scientific research. That's what peer review is.

But it's also an excuse to reject someone's case without debating it. By saying he's not "peer-reviewed" and so not qualified to present a case to be debated.

Thing is, it gets to a point where further debate, without introducing new evidence, . . .

There's value in bringing back an earlier argument or earlier evidence which might have been poorly dealt with before. You can't dictate that it was "settled" back then and cannot be debated further unless something "new" is introduced. There is a point served in going back and reviewing something earlier which may have been done incorrectly.

. . . or if arguing only because the conclusion is undesirable, is not productive.

It doesn't matter what the MOTIVE for arguing is. All that matters is finding the truth, or finding the best answer or solution. If it's claimed that the conclusion missed this goal, then the argument should be resumed.


I didn't imagine the problem of experts refusing to debate, including climate scientists refusing to debate global warming deniers. (But I see there are some good debates on YouTube which I hadn't noticed before.) I'm unable to dig out the website I saw on this a year or 2 ago, in which "skeptic" John Coleman was challenging climate scientists, and they refused because he's not a "climate scientist" per se. In searching for that, I found the following, and also it appears Coleman himself is refusing a debate challenge issued to him from someone of lower status than himself. So both sides of the issue are guilty of refusing to debate the other side.

The following indicates a pattern of climate scientists being unwilling to debate, because they don't want to give credibility to the "skeptic" side of the issue:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/c...-debate-global-warming-skeptics-in-the-media/ :

Climate scientists and environmentalists are venting their frustrations debating those who are skeptical of man-made global warming — and some have even gone so far as to refuse debating skeptics.

Dan Weiss, the director of climate strategy at the liberal Center for American Progress, refused to appear on Fox Business to debate climate skeptic Marc Morano last week. Morano runs the blog Climate Depot, where he reports on environment and climate news. (RELATED: ‘Suffocating pressure’: Former Center for American Progress describes White House censorship)

Weiss was set to debate Morano on the show “The Independents” but “refused to debate directly with Morano, and chided [the show] for airing his views,” according to the Fox Business show.

“In what is part of a growing trend, yet another global warming activist ducked a TV debate,” Morano told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Weiss and other activists claim the debate is so settled that granting a skeptic ‘equal time’ does some type of disservice to ‘science.’ Climate activists want to impose everything from carbon taxes, UN treaties, cap-and-trade, EPA regulations, light bulb restrictions, automobile regulations, even our bedtimes — yet they will not debate the basis for these actions.” (RELATED: Scientists: Government agencies use the peer review process to squash dissent) . . .

“I have had many debate cancellations previously,” Morano added. “In 2010, I was set to debate Hollywood producer James Cameron after weeks of negotiations, only to have the debate cancelled at the last moment when my plane landed in Colorado for the debate.”

Weiss isn’t the only proponent of man-made global warming that has refused to debate a climate skeptic. Last year, Fox Business host John Stossel asked about a dozen climate scientists to debate skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist who now teaches at the University of Alabama.

Scientists and the media suppressing debates with skeptics

Stossel also asked the environmental group the Union of Concerned Scientists if they would debate Spencer on TV. Stossel said UCS replied that debating Spencer “would be doing the public a disservice because it would give [his] extreme ideas credibility.” NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies climate scientist Gavin Schmidt did go on that episode but only after Spencer was no longer on the set.

As the debate surrounding global warming has intensified this past year, some news outlets have opted not to provide a platform for climate skeptics. Most recently, the BBC Scotland has barred debates between climate scientists and skeptics from being aired.

The Daily Mail reports: “A BBC executive in charge of editorial standards has ordered programme editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming sceptics.”

Alasdair MacLeod, who is head of editorial standards and compliance for BBC Scotland, sent an email in February to senior producers and editors, saying that “we should not run debates / discussions directly between scientists and sceptics.”

Last year, the Los Angeles Times announced that it would not be publishing letters to the editor that were critical of the theory of man-made global warming because the evidence provided by scientists suggests that human activity is warming the planet.

“I’m no expert when it comes to our planet’s complex climate processes or any scientific field,” wrote Paul Thornton, the Times’ letter editor. “Consequently, when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts — in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review.”

Note that the term "peer review" is used as an excuse why a contributor/debater is rejected as too low in status to be allowed to challenge the mainstream consensus.


Also: "Why experts refuse to debate climate" -- https://www.climatescience.org.au/content/why-experts-refuse-debate-climate

 

[Toni]

You assume that these people don't have better things to do than to perpetually argue with people who don't believe their work or put forth the conspiracy theories. The whole point of peer review is to have somebody check your work.

Everything should be checked. What's phony about "peer-review" is that this cliché is used as an excuse to reject a debater as unqualified to present a case, and so his side of the issue is summarily dismissed without being considered.

Of course it's good to do the "peer review," but not to disqualify the debate challenger because he has not been "peer-reviewed," as they are often disqualified. Instead of censoring his views, they should just get the "peer-review" (or equivalent) done so the debate can take place. Or if no "peer" is willing to "review" him, then whose fault is that?

If we spent our time debating every bit of single scientific research nothing would move forward in just about any area of research.

Only those bits about which there is disagreement should be debated. But including disagreement from non-professionals or persons who are knowledgeable but uncredentialed.

There is far too much science illiteracy and far too much of people who cling to the fantasy that scientists know nothing because the illiterates and those with a political axe to grind cannot or will not understand basic research.

The problem is usually that the scientists don't explain it clearly, not that the public cannot or will not understand it. Of course some of the scientists themselves may be poor explainers, but if their findings are legitimate, it must be possible for someone to explain it to average folks.

The debate took place a long time ago.

I went to a lecture by Carl Sagan in 1985. He spoke of the state of the science at that time. The debate was over and there was time to do something.

"The debate" is never over. It continues forever, as long as someone still disagrees.

But with business in control of the country there was nothing anybody could do.

Business is generally very pro-science.

And what business did in response to the science was create a bunch of phony science.

That's fine if you can prove it. But that means the debate continues, and is not over. The phony part is claiming the debate is over and so must end, and dismissing the "deniers" as unfit to present a case because they're on the wrong side.

They muddied the water that was clear a long time ago, . . .

What's "clear" to you is not "clear" to the other guy.

. . . so sycophants to corporate greed today could say . . .

Name-calling doesn't advance science.

. . . there was something to debate.

You're always on the wrong side if you say there's nothing to debate.

If we spent our time debating every bit of single scientific research nothing would move forward in just about any area of research.

We DO debate every bit of scientific research. That's what peer review is.

But it's also an excuse to reject someone's case without debating it. By saying he's not "peer-reviewed" and so not qualified to present a case to be debated.

Thing is, it gets to a point where further debate, without introducing new evidence, . . .

There's value in bringing back an earlier argument or earlier evidence which might have been poorly dealt with before. You can't dictate that it was "settled" back then and cannot be debated further unless something "new" is introduced. There is a point served in going back and reviewing something earlier which may have been done incorrectly.

. . . or if arguing only because the conclusion is undesirable, is not productive.

It doesn't matter what the MOTIVE for arguing is. All that matters is finding the truth, or finding the best answer or solution. If it's claimed that the conclusion missed this goal, then the argument should be resumed.


I didn't imagine the problem of experts refusing to debate, including climate scientists refusing to debate global warming deniers. (But I see there are some good debates on YouTube which I hadn't noticed before.) I'm unable to dig out the website I saw on this a year or 2 ago, in which "skeptic" John Coleman was challenging climate scientists, and they refused because he's not a "climate scientist" per se. In searching for that, I found the following, and also it appears Coleman himself is refusing a debate challenge issued to him from someone of lower status than himself. So both sides of the issue are guilty of refusing to debate the other side.

The following indicates a pattern of climate scientists being unwilling to debate, because they don't want to give credibility to the "skeptic" side of the issue:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/c...-debate-global-warming-skeptics-in-the-media/ :

Climate scientists and environmentalists are venting their frustrations debating those who are skeptical of man-made global warming — and some have even gone so far as to refuse debating skeptics.

Dan Weiss, the director of climate strategy at the liberal Center for American Progress, refused to appear on Fox Business to debate climate skeptic Marc Morano last week. Morano runs the blog Climate Depot, where he reports on environment and climate news. (RELATED: ‘Suffocating pressure’: Former Center for American Progress describes White House censorship)

Weiss was set to debate Morano on the show “The Independents” but “refused to debate directly with Morano, and chided [the show] for airing his views,” according to the Fox Business show.

“In what is part of a growing trend, yet another global warming activist ducked a TV debate,” Morano told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Weiss and other activists claim the debate is so settled that granting a skeptic ‘equal time’ does some type of disservice to ‘science.’ Climate activists want to impose everything from carbon taxes, UN treaties, cap-and-trade, EPA regulations, light bulb restrictions, automobile regulations, even our bedtimes — yet they will not debate the basis for these actions.” (RELATED: Scientists: Government agencies use the peer review process to squash dissent) . . .

“I have had many debate cancellations previously,” Morano added. “In 2010, I was set to debate Hollywood producer James Cameron after weeks of negotiations, only to have the debate cancelled at the last moment when my plane landed in Colorado for the debate.”

Weiss isn’t the only proponent of man-made global warming that has refused to debate a climate skeptic. Last year, Fox Business host John Stossel asked about a dozen climate scientists to debate skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist who now teaches at the University of Alabama.

Scientists and the media suppressing debates with skeptics

Stossel also asked the environmental group the Union of Concerned Scientists if they would debate Spencer on TV. Stossel said UCS replied that debating Spencer “would be doing the public a disservice because it would give [his] extreme ideas credibility.” NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies climate scientist Gavin Schmidt did go on that episode but only after Spencer was no longer on the set.

As the debate surrounding global warming has intensified this past year, some news outlets have opted not to provide a platform for climate skeptics. Most recently, the BBC Scotland has barred debates between climate scientists and skeptics from being aired.

The Daily Mail reports: “A BBC executive in charge of editorial standards has ordered programme editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming sceptics.”

Alasdair MacLeod, who is head of editorial standards and compliance for BBC Scotland, sent an email in February to senior producers and editors, saying that “we should not run debates / discussions directly between scientists and sceptics.”

Last year, the Los Angeles Times announced that it would not be publishing letters to the editor that were critical of the theory of man-made global warming because the evidence provided by scientists suggests that human activity is warming the planet.

“I’m no expert when it comes to our planet’s complex climate processes or any scientific field,” wrote Paul Thornton, the Times’ letter editor. “Consequently, when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts — in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review.”

Note that the term "peer review" is used as an excuse why a contributor/debater is rejected as too low in status to be allowed to challenge the mainstream consensus.


Also: "Why experts refuse to debate climate" -- https://www.climatescience.org.au/content/why-experts-refuse-debate-climate

You do not seem to understand the difference between opinion, informed opinion, and fact. Or the scientific process. Or the difference between popular media and academic or scientific journals.

 

[laughing dog]

Note that the term "peer review" is used as an excuse why a contributor/debater is rejected as too low in status to be allowed to challenge the mainstream consensus.

That has nothing to do with the what peer review is. You made a claim that peer review is pseudo-science. Unsurprisingly, you have not produced any evidence to support your claim. Peer review is a quality control process in science.

As to your example about publishing letters in a newspaper, you do realize that without some sort of protocol for selecting letters, the costs of publishing the newspaper increase which increases the prices to consumers, thereby lowering everyone's standard of living - something you oppose. Furthermore, you imply that you know more about how to run a newspaper than the people who actually do. In another thread, you endorse the concept of corporate infallibility, so it seems your complaint is a bit hypocritical.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You assume that these people don't have better things to do than to perpetually argue with people who don't believe their work or put forth the conspiracy theories. The whole point of peer review is to have somebody check your work.

Everything should be checked. What's phony about "peer-review" is that this cliché is used as an excuse to reject a debater as unqualified to present a case, and so his side of the issue is summarily dismissed without being considered.

Of course it's good to do the "peer review," but not to disqualify the debate challenger because he has not been "peer-reviewed," as they are often disqualified. Instead of censoring his views, they should just get the "peer-review" (or equivalent) done so the debate can take place. Or if no "peer" is willing to "review" him, then whose fault is that?

I'm not sure you understand what peer-review is. Peer-review only refers to having a bunch of peers check your work before a publication will accept it. This is because the publication wishes to maintain a standard of authority, hence why my paper "Sasquatch haploid genes found in Mermen" is not published. Sure I've done research and can back it up, but my peers say I need to do more than listen to old Art Bell cassette tapes while tripping on peyote. If JAMA published my article, no one would take them seriously, much like those online journals that don't do peer review, just pad the CV. So peer-review is a way scientific journals can ensure quality of their publications. Now here is something else you may not know about scientific journals, they are filled with debate. They have opinion sections where published studies are responded to. Like a newspaper, they are not going to publish everything sent to them, but debate does take place.

 

[Toni]

So what is the right proportion?

For purposes of truth in advertising, I'd think it's inappropriate to call your march a march "for science" if most of the marchers are really just marching against Trump. YMMV.

As someone who was at the DC march, and who was involved with March for Science, I can attest that while there were a very few signs which were specifically anti- Trump, those signs and those marchers comprised a very small number of marchers in DC. Judging from what friends who attended other marches told me, and photos shared from other marches, this held true across all US and international marches. Personally, I marched with people who work with various defense contractors and on occasion, with DoD.

Frankly, there was tremendous discussion about whether or not anyone should carry an overtly political sign at all. Most did not, but yes, some did. A few of these were anti-Trump, but more were specifically against denying science or funding for science. Those signs would have been carried no matter who was proposing the budget cuts, no matter who removed all mention of climate science from the EPA site, no matter who was proposing defunding medical research, the NIH, and so on. Trump be damned. And too fucking bad if his little minions cannot take the heat when people protest his policies.

Most of the discussion among marchers that I heard was that it was important to move away from directly criticizing Trump for trivial issues but to directly address the short and long term effects of his proposed budget and policies.

The vast, overwhelming number of signs and marchers were advocating for science, for the funding of science, for the importance of science. Some were specific to particular areas of science, some were more general. While many of the marchers were research scientists, there were also many, many doctors, nurses, laboratorians of various kinds, as well as science enthusiasts, etc. We were also supported by many in the arts community, some of whom are science enthusiasts, and some of whom support science and funding for science on general principal. And then, there were those who marched because their lives or the lives of their children or other loved ones depending upon scientific advances. Heartbreakingly, there were those who marched to support continued research because they had lost someone they loved to a disease which has no cure (yet).

Among those who participated in March for Science were those from all political persuasions, conservative as well as liberal. Marchers included a number of older people, many young people, and even small children and babies. And a few dogs, as well. Who presumably hold no political opinions at all.

I know this because I was there.

 

[laughing dog]

For purposes of truth in advertising, I'd think it's inappropriate to call your march a march "for science" if most of the marchers are really just marching against Trump. YMMV.

"Most" is a conveniently vague criterion as to make your answer non-responsive. And you have presented no evidence indicating that "most" were just marching against Trump.

What's your basis for claiming it doesn't make any difference whether the number with valid motives is 90% or 10%?

For a number of reasons. Most people have multiple motives for acting. Trying to delineate what proportion of a person's motives are "valid" seems to be analoguous as to determining the number of angels who can fit on the head of a pin. Moreover, the fact that someone takes the time and effort (and perhaps the risk) of protesting for a stated cause indicates that they probably have some agreement with that cause.

Is "It is stupid to insist that people are 100% pure in their motives." your basis? If so, that's an invalid inference.....

Really? You are the one questioning motives, as if it is all or nothing, not me. If someone is there to support science and to march against ____, so what? You have presented absolutely no evidence that "most" of the protesters were not concerned about science and that they were somehow being hypocritical.

If you are contending that your post was also a strawman, I won't dispute the point.

Dude, nothing in my posts could be interpreted by rational person as claiming that a majority of protesters were upset with ____.

Familiarity with the thought processes exhibited by my fellow Americans.

Projection is a form of narcissism, not analysis. Nor is it a basis for evidence about other people. In simple terms, you have no evidence to support your claim.

I recall the thread you're referring to; I also recall its content. You are grossly misrepresenting it...

Even though I will bow to your expertise in gross misrepresentation and to pulling "facts" out of your ass, you are wrong.

 

[RavenSky]

For purposes of truth in advertising, I'd think it's inappropriate to call your march a march "for science" if most of the marchers are really just marching against Trump. YMMV.

As someone who was at the DC march, and who was involved with March for Science, I can attest that while there were a very few signs which were specifically anti- Trump, those signs and those marchers comprised a very small number of marchers in DC. Judging from what friends who attended other marches told me, and photos shared from other marches, this held true across all US and international marches. Personally, I marched with people who work with various defense contractors and on occasion, with DoD.

Frankly, there was tremendous discussion about whether or not anyone should carry an overtly political sign at all. Most did not, but yes, some did. A few of these were anti-Trump, but more were specifically against denying science or funding for science. Those signs would have been carried no matter who was proposing the budget cuts, no matter who removed all mention of climate science from the EPA site, no matter who was proposing defunding medical research, the NIH, and so on. Trump be damned. And too fucking bad if his little minions cannot take the heat when people protest his policies.

Most of the discussion among marchers that I heard was that it was important to move away from directly criticizing Trump for trivial issues but to directly address the short and long term effects of his proposed budget and policies.

The vast, overwhelming number of signs and marchers were advocating for science, for the funding of science, for the importance of science. Some were specific to particular areas of science, some were more general. While many of the marchers were research scientists, there were also many, many doctors, nurses, laboratorians of various kinds, as well as science enthusiasts, etc. We were also supported by many in the arts community, some of whom are science enthusiasts, and some of whom support science and funding for science on general principal. And then, there were those who marched because their lives or the lives of their children or other loved ones depending upon scientific advances. Heartbreakingly, there were those who marched to support continued research because they had lost someone they loved to a disease which has no cure (yet).

Among those who participated in March for Science were those from all political persuasions, conservative as well as liberal. Marchers included a number of older people, many young people, and even small children and babies. And a few dogs, as well. Who presumably hold no political opinions at all.

I know this because I was there.

^^^ All of that holds true for the Miami march as well