(Advertisement)

PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: ‘Science’ Requires Honest Discussion

Posted: April 11, 2012 at 4:11 a.m.

Poor Art Hobson. The same weekend of his column, “Increased cynicism toward science hurts” (April 1), there were two columns on how “science” actually works — for those who think.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 04/11/2012

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

CASUALTIES OF WAR

To honor the men and women in our armed forces and remind our readers of their sacrifices, the Benton County Daily Record is publishing Department of Defense announcements ... Read »

Next Story »

BETWEEN THE LINES: Police Captain’s Role Scru...

Bobby Petrino’s decision-making was bad enough, lying as he did to his boss and to the public about that motorcycle accident that threatens to cost him his multimilliondoll... Read »

Count on it, any time a letter is dripping with sarcasm and accuses those he disagrees with of being stupid, that writer himself doesn't know very much. These arguments-by-insult are tiresome.
***
Mr. Hil says that most "green" jobs (as listed for statistical purposes) do not have to do with renewable energy technology but rather with recycling and mass transit.
I found a bunch of BLS statistics but not the ones he was drawing from:
http://www.bls.gov/green/#definition
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ggqce...
The fact is that energy and resource conservation, recycling and retrofitting, are just as "green" as wind turbines and solar collectors.
Countries such as Germany have a lot more renewable energy jobs because they have committed themselves to this path much more than we have.

Posted by: Coralie

April 11, 2012 at 12:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hill says that bioethicists are scientists. But bioethicists come from a variety of fields, especially philosophy, and have to do with values issues rather than experiments and the scientific method..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics
Apparently Hill lumps together all scholars as scientists.
I did not read the Greenberg column on which Hill bases his letter, but it would certainly be a radical and rare bioethicist who favors "after birth abortions"--which I would call infanticide.
Apparently two Australian academics came up with this idea. That does not make this notion representative of most bioethicists, much less of scientists.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/s...,

Posted by: Coralie

April 11, 2012 at 12:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It would be so much easier if some of these folks would just understand this:

Weather is the end result of Climate.

Weather is like rolling one die and observing the number that comes up. Climate is rolling 100 all at the same time.

Climate change is going from rolling 100 six-sided to 100 ten-sided. You still roll some low and some high but the average is much higher.

But I'm willing to guess that your average climate science denier thinks anything above a D6 is "evil" ;)

Posted by: Nilatir

April 11, 2012 at 1:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

STEVE: "wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy (scientifi c) jobs total 4,700.">>

Since wind alone now employs more than coal, it's safe to say Steve hasn't the foggiest idea of what he is talking about. Observe:

"The wind industry now employs more people than coal mining in the United States.
Wind industry jobs jumped to 85,000 in 2008, a 70% increase from the previous year, according to a report released Tuesday from the American Wind Energy Association."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01...

STEVE: "The global warming “scientists” manipulate words and statistics,">>

Of course Steve provides not a single example, because he can't. Climategate got science deniers hopes up but after multiple independent investigations, they got bupkis.

STEVE: "[scientists] shout, “Proven science!”>>

Actually they don't. Strictly speaking, science disproves things and provides degrees of probability for things. We know the earth has warmed with near certainty, and that humans have caused most of it with at least 95% confidence. That's not "proof" but it's far better than anything you have, which is, all of the science against you.

ST: "Thankfully there are climate scientists like Dr.
David Legates">>

Legates isn't a climatologist, and he's up to his arse in oil money: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?...

ST: "Dr. Willie Soon">>

Dr. Willie's bought and paid for notions have not held up in peer review. He's a for hire, jack of all trades Denier:

"The first author of this paper, Dr Willie Soon, is an astrophysicist by training. In U.S. congressional testimony, he identified his “training” in paleoclimatology as attendance at workshops, conferences, and summer schools.

Dr Soon has since become an expert on polar bears,...
Most recently, Dr Soon has become an expert on mercury poisoning, using the Wall Street Journal as a platform to assuage fears about mercury-contaminated fish because, after all, “mercury has always existed naturally in Earth’s environment.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Clima...

"Soon was a... speaker at the 2011 Heartland Institute conference, and can be counted on to produce a contrarian take on any particular issue that anyone might care about – ranging from climate, to mercury in fish and polar bear population dynamics."

See a beautiful unpacking of his science here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/...

As to his oily fingers:
"U.S. oil and coal companies, including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and the world’s largest coal-burning utility, Southern Company, have contributed more than $1 million over the past decade to his research. According to Greenpeace, every grant Dr. Soon has received since 2002 has been from oil or coal interests."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 11, 2012 at 9:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )