Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 12/10/2009 4:24:15 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
I trust science without reservation - I’m not too trusting of some scientists or their conclusions though!
Mel
“Science” is whatever the party says it is.
I trust science. It is the scientist which I do not trust.
*ping*
This applies just as much to AIDS skeptics and Creationists/IDers as it does climate science...or any other scientific endeavor for that matter.
bump
Science- yes.
Politically motivated lies spread by Al Goracle -no.
There are too many of those concentrating on Climate Studies at present.
They need to be purged, willingly or not.
Trust Science, but don’t trust a scientist with a finger in the financial pie.
SEE: Phil Jones, who admits he isn’t allowed to admit that the Earth actually cooled from 1998 - 2005:
From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005
John,
There has been some email traffic in the last few days to a week - quite a bit really, only a small part about MSU. The main part has been one of your House subcommittees wanting Mike Mann and others and IPCC to respond on how they produced their reconstructions and how IPCC
produced their report.
In case you want to look at this see later in the email !
Also this load of rubbish !
This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot.
The scientific community would come down on me in no
uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant. The Australian also alerted me to this blogging ! I think this is the term ! Luckily I don’t live in Australia.
AND SEE ALSO: ‘Climategate’ professor Phil Jones awarded £13 million in research grants.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6735846/Climategate-professor-Phil-Jones-awarded-13-million-in-research-grants.html
Amen to that. Indeed, a good dose of market oriented science would cure that. I think it’s time to start phasing science over to the free market. Let supply and demand determine how many scientists we need.
Science is the search for truth. Yeah, I’d NEVER trust that. Seesh.
There is no science without fallible human beings. They are inseparable.
Anti-Science!
ROFL
I am FOR science, REAL SCIENCE, unbiased science, not political hacks manipulating data to get a desired outcome.
People who have an agenda have no place in science.
That is not anti-science! And I find it offensive for anyone to question my love for science because I refuse to allow a few quacks who have fooled others into believing they are REAL scientists, when they are nothing more than agenda driven ideologues.
Science? Why not!
But who will tell science?
Science? What Science?
Anyway Science needs to improve and go on every day
Obviously you’ve read his other posts before....
ping
I can’t think of any great scientist that is remembered down through the generations that became great and remembered for following the prevailing consensus.
They all overturned a prevailing belief, and the greater the consensus stacked against them, the more settled the science seemed, the more we revere the scientist today.
Since medical doctors have lost the ethos of the Hippocratic Oath, they have joined scientists in forgetting their humanity, in the pursuit of information devoid of knowledge and wisdom.
Setting aside religious beliefs for a moment, both scientists and doctors need to reexamine their whole spectrum of values.
To explain, values in a non-religious context can be looked at in three ways. The first of these is the scale of life. From simplest to most complex, life has inherent value, but life also has value to other forms of life. Most scientists grasp this well, understanding both that life is ephemeral, and that life consumes or displaces other life.
Many, unfortunately, do not look beyond just life, to realize that there are other values, other scales of values, beyond just life.
For example, if a person has value, does their family have more value, or their “people”, or their nation, or all people apart from other living things? It is easy to assume that many people are more important than one person, but this assumption is not always correct.
There are some scientists and doctors who try to place the value of the life of another person in context with the entire world. How arrogant! It is just another form of dehumanization, and an excuse to abuse another person with emotional impunity and indifference.
Some of them are overwhelmed by the idea of there being so many people in the world. It is easy for them to talk about how much “better” the world would be if a third, or a half, or even most people would just die. This is the problem of a lack of ethics.
And this is the bottom line, for both scientists and doctors. They either embrace life, if they are ethical, or they despise life, if they have no ethos.
The third kind of values are based in sympathy or empathy. Many scientists and doctors abhor this, however, because they just cannot muster such feelings And while the ethics found in religion could make a suitable replacement for this lack of sympathy or empathy, without it, all scientists and doctors can promise is destruction and death.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.