One in four Americans don't know...

tmyers said:
There is global warming taking place outside my office window right now and I LIKE IT!!!
Click to expand...
Then by definition it can't be anthropomorphic climate change. It would have to be undesirable change for it to be the result of human activity.
 
EdFred said:
I haven't dug into it to read both sides, but John Yurkin(?) wrote a book in the 70s about the toxicity of sugar and it's correlation to heart disease, obesity, etc and was completely rebuffed by the apparent consensus at the time of "low fat" scientists. Of course the low fat scientists were seemingly backed by the food industry. 40 years later, it appears that he was probably correct.

I take neither side in the argument, and I just started looking into it, so I'm not saying whether he IS correct, or ISN'T, but rather than silence him, why didn't the low fat scientists say, "hey, he may be on to something" in search of "the truth."

Now, it may turn out he is completely wrong, but that should be proven through experiments, not egoistic and industry pressure.
Click to expand...

I don't remember whether it was in this thread or another one, but there was a link to an article on Yudkin's experience, which said what happened to him was a result of pressure from the sugar industry. So yes, when scientists come up with something that threatens powerful industrial interests, the scientific process can become distorted. Some oil companies appear to have been trying to do the same thing in the field of climatology.

[Edit: I found the link to the article about Yudkin. It was posted earlier in this thread:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1391244&postcount=20]
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
There is no science cabal. If you think there is, you have never tried to work with scientists. You simply cannot tell a scientist what to say or what conclusions to draw. It doesn't work. Not even a little.
Click to expand...

Truest thing ever typed into PoA.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
I haven't dug into it to read both sides, but John Yurkin(?) wrote a book in the 70s about the toxicity of sugar and it's correlation to heart disease, obesity, etc and was completely rebuffed by the apparent consensus at the time of "low fat" scientists. Of course the low fat scientists were seemingly backed by the food industry. 40 years later, it appears that he was probably correct.

I take neither side in the argument, and I just started looking into it, so I'm not saying whether he IS correct, or ISN'T, but rather than silence him, why didn't the low fat scientists say, "hey, he may be on to something" in search of "the truth."

Now, it may turn out he is completely wrong, but that should be proven through experiments, not egoistic and industry pressure.
Click to expand...

They did the same thing to Atkins.

When I was in college I took a couple of lab courses in Clinical Nutrition, and one of the students brought up the Atkins diet. The professor (who had a Ph.D. in molecular biology and had authored several books on the subject) went berserk. She started ranting and raving about how people on the Atkins diet were going to be dead in ten years, how their cholesterol was going to skyrocket, and so on, and so on. Her opinion was consistent with that of most experts in nutrition at the time.

That was in 1981, if I recall correctly. More than 30 years later, the empirical data don't bear out the experts' predictions. People who stayed on Atkins, as a group, have slightly lower rates of heart disease, somewhat lower-than-average total cholesterol, significantly lower-than-average triglycerides, and much lower rates of diabetes and obesity. In fact, as a group, they're healthier than average.

It makes no sense according to the established science. You can't live on a high-fat diet all your life and have lower serum lipid levels. It's impossible. But impossible or not, the empirical data is what it is.

Nonetheless, that doesn't stop the mainstream nutritional establishment from trying to explain the data away. People on Atkins get bored with eating is a popular explanation. They were bored for 30+ years, but stayed on the diet nonetheless, say they. Others say that they must have exercised more. Still others say that they're still killing themselves, but they'll die from kidney failure rather than heart attacks.

The one explanation that none of the more traditional experts is willing to even consider is that maybe their framework was wrong, and Atkins was right.

I'm neither for nor against the Atkins diet. The most I'll commit to is that most likely it's a good diet for some people, but not for others. What I find comical is the extents that some "scientists" will go to to explain away the empirical evidence just because it doesn't happen to fit within their theoretical framework.

-Rich
 
AcroGimp said:
While not 100% addressing this question, this can give you some sense of the overall internal dialogues - from the UK Guardian following the release of the East Anglia E-Mails (also called ClimateGate). For the sake of 'fairness' I have left the after-the-fact explanations offered by many of the Scientists as part of $200,000+ publicity campaign following the leak.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. The explanations show the danger of relying on reverse-cherry-picked excerpts taken out of context.

Do you have a link to the source?
 
Do we need a scientist to explain planes on a treadmill?
 
steingar said:
I doubt there is little short of cultural change to rectify the situation. We've become a nation who's population doesn't believe in scientific progress and doesn't fundamentally trust those who carry it out. In such an environment we will loose our scientific preeminence. Such is difficult to build and all too easily lost.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's quite as dire as that, but the scientific community within the climate change area has certainly damaged their credibility, and by extension may have weakened the credibility of the wider community. But I think most Americans value the progress we've enjoyed through scientific initiative.
 
Palmpilot said:
Thanks for that. The explanations show the danger of relying on reverse-cherry-picked excerpts taken out of context.

Do you have a link to the source?
Click to expand...
From the UK Guardian, like I said - I also pointed out that the explanations included were part of what was recently revealed to be a $200K public relations damage control campaign by the University of East Anglia.

The Guardian provided those after-the-fact 'explanations' for less than 1% of the over 5,000 e-mails in the ClimateGate leak.

'Gimp
 
So, in conclusion--the earth revolves around the sun. Good enough.
 
steingar said:
I doubt there is little short of cultural change to rectify the situation. We've become a nation who's population doesn't believe in scientific progress and doesn't fundamentally trust those who carry it out. In such an environment we will loose our scientific preeminence. Such is difficult to build and all too easily lost.
Click to expand...

Oh exactly!!!

That is why most real research is happening elsewhere. The US was the leader in physics up until the late 80s. Now it is France. The serious work all happens there. In my field all the research is happening in Europe and Asia. As I sit in an ITU meeting on a US delegation our only input has been to slow down other countries from getting too far ahead of us. I now spend almost half of my year overseas. A little more than a decade ago everyone was coming to the US to see our work. Sad really.

A big part of this is that the money to do research is overseas. Other countries are the ones that are investing in science. Our growing science illiterate population does not think government should be spending money on anything, let alone that sciency stuff!

There was a recent report showing that about 20% of US based scientists are contemplating overseas moves.
 
Last edited:
LDJones said:
I don't think it's quite as dire as that, but the scientific community within the climate change area has certainly damaged their credibility, and by extension may have weakened the credibility of the wider community. But I think most Americans value the progress we've enjoyed through scientific initiative.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO!!!

:mad2::mad2::mad2:
 
ScottM said:
A little over 47% in the US do not know that evolution is a fact.
Click to expand...

You've reversed the numbers. 48% agree that evolution is true. 52% disagree or don't know the meaning of evolution. The NSF report (see post 51 for a link to it; page 7-4 of the report) indicated a survey experiment was performed to clarify what some of the survey questions actually revealed, including that probably 24% understand what evolution is but don't believe it is true, while 28% may not understand the theory of evolution. Likewise, 21% seemed to recognize the big bang theory but don't believe it is true. So 60% rather than 39% were familiar with the big bang theory. Here is the relevant quote:
"A survey experiment showed that 48% of respondents said they thought it was true that “human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals,” but 72% gave this response when the same statement was prefaced by “according to the theory of evolution.” Similarly, 39% of respondents said that “the universe began with a huge explosion,” but 60% gave this response when the statement was prefaced by “according to astronomers.”"​
 
JeffDG said:
You're confusing the barycenter and the Lagrange point, but basically correct. The Earth (and actually the sun) orbit their common center of gravity (bayrcenter), which is 449 km from the center of the Sol itself.
Click to expand...
I missed this thread... yep that's correct. The Lagrange points are 5 "stable points" where a third body can orbit in a stable configuration with respect to two larger bodies such as the Sun and Earth, both revolving around their common barycenter. But the barycenter itself is NOT one of the Lagrange points.

I'm a little skeptical of the 1 in 4 figure quoted. The context in which the question was asked? Not reported and perhaps significant.
 
ScottM said:
Our growing science illiterate population does not think government should be spending money on anything, let alone that sciency stuff!
Click to expand...

What is odd is that if the above is true, it is somewhat at odds with what U.S. citizens have claimed in the NSF surveys. Quoting again:

"A survey of the United States and 10 European countries, including the 5 largest, suggests that interest in S&T in the United States is somewhat higher than in Europe."​

"As in past years, about 4 in 10 Americans said the government was spending “too little on research.” In 2012, about half of respondents said government spending on scientific research was “about right,” and about 1 in 10 said there was too much research spending."​
 
FastEddieB said:
Preparatory to getting into climate, I would ask if anyone in the class could tell me why it was hotter in the summer than in the winter. "Because we're closer to the sun" was the most common answer.
Click to expand...
In my teaching of astronomy I've been surprised by how resistant that misconception is to change, even when they understand that the seasons are reversed between the northern and southern hemispheres and that the explanation lies in the tilt of the Earth's axis. Many still think that it's summer in the hemisphere that's tilted towards the Sun because that hemisphere is closer.
 
Last edited:
azure said:
In my teaching of astronomy I've been surprised by how resistant that misconception is to change, even when they understand that the seasons are reversed between the northern and southern hemispheres and that the explanation lies in the tilt of the Earth's axis. Many still think that it's summer in the hemisphere that's tilted towards the Sun because that hemisphere is closer.
Click to expand...
Amazing. We learned all that stuff in grade school. Did these people never complete the fifth grade? Are they not able to look at the angle of the sun and figure out what's going on? Holy crap.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't remember whether it was in this thread or another one, but there was a link to an article on Yudkin's experience, which said what happened to him was a result of pressure from the sugar industry. So yes, when scientists come up with something that threatens powerful industrial interests, the scientific process can become distorted. Some oil companies appear to have been trying to do the same thing in the field of climatology.

[Edit: I found the link to the article about Yudkin. It was posted earlier in this thread:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1391244&postcount=20]
Click to expand...

But the issue I was getting at was there were a number of scientists siding with the sugar industry and actively getting him shot down. So much for the pursuit of truth. That's why I trust a scientist who says "believe me because I am a scientist" as much as I trust a cop with a tiny dick and a huge chip on his shoulder.
 
DaleB said:
Amazing. We learned all that stuff in grade school. Did these people never complete the fifth grade? Are they not able to look at the angle of the sun and figure out what's going on? Holy crap.
Click to expand...
Well, in defense of the masses, I have forgotten most of what I learned in fifth grade and I seldom stop to take notice of the angle of the sun unless it is a a beautiful sunset over the ocean.
 
steingar said:
Can you cite a specific example of a scientist being "silenced" by the scientific community because of the nature of their conclusions? Keep in mind that articles about mental power, homeopathic medicine, and cold fusion have all graced the pages of the foremost science journals despite widespread disbelief by scientists.
Click to expand...

The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.
Click to expand...


http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/08/26/lawrence-solomon-science-now-settled/

A related article...
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/09/02/lawrence-solomon-our-cosmic-climate/
 
FastEddieB said:
I taught Aviation a Meteorology at the junior college level in the late 70's/early 80's.

Preparatory to getting into climate, I would ask if anyone in the class could tell me why it was hotter in the summer than in the winter. "Because we're closer to the sun" was the most common answer.

Many did not know that when it was summer in the northern hemisphere it was winter in the southern.

Then again, I could not tell you coherently how soap works!
Click to expand...

Of course for the northern hemisphere they are right.
 
azure said:
In my teaching of astronomy I've been surprised by how resistant that misconception is to change, even when they understand that the seasons are reversed between the northern and southern hemispheres and that the explanation lies in the tilt of the Earth's axis. Many still think that it's summer in the hemisphere that's tilted towards the Sun because that hemisphere is closer.
Click to expand...

Well, it kinda is since the summer hemisphere is tilted towards the sun. Just like the side of the moon we always see is closer to earth than the side we don't.
 
EdFred said:
Poppycock. Scientists are above such pettiness. In fact they should be praised as the most pure individuals to ever exist, and we should be grateful we are even allowed in the same solar system as them. They only want the truth*. (Cue scene from A Few Good Men)
Click to expand...
Now now, if they didn't believe that how the heck could they do their pointless jobs? :lol:
 
ScottM said:
A little over 47% in the US do not know that evolution is a fact.
Click to expand...

Prove it. :wink2:

It may be the leading naturalist theory, but that's a far cry from a "fact"....but it's certainly a commonly held "belief" by many.
 
ScottM said:
A little over 47% in the US do not know that evolution is a fact.
Click to expand...

I think that's questionable. Many scientists would consider those who believe in some form of deistic evolution to be rejecting evolution.

Deistic evolutionists may believe exactly what a scientist believes in terms of what actually happened, but their belief that God had a hand in designing or overseeing the natural processes involved would be enough for many scientists to dismiss them as religious crackpots who reject evolution. It's kind of ironic, actually, considering how often scientists accuse religionists of being closed-minded and intolerant.

-Rich
 
jtheune said:
Of course for the northern hemisphere they are right.
Click to expand...

Not really.

The earth is about 93 million miles from the sun.

The diameter of the earth is about 8,000 miles.

Negligible effect re: closer to the sun.

As JeffDG pointed out, the slight ellipticality of the orbit would far overshadow it anyway, and even that has a negligible effect on the seasons.
 
LDJones said:
Prove it. :wink2:

It may be the leading naturalist theory, but that's a far cry from a "fact"....but it's certainly a commonly held "belief" by many.
Click to expand...

You seem to misunderstand the word "theory", but that doesn't surprise me. In your use it is conjecture or supposition. It means something completely different in science.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." That's as good as any simple definition. We could tidy it up a bit by adding in the "selective forces" thing.

Evolution is evident all around us in the weeds we pluck from our yards, to the food we eat, to moths in Great Britain. It is demonstrated in the fossil record and I'm sure Steingar will be able to explain how we visualize it in DNA.
 
RJM62 said:
I think that's questionable. Many scientists would consider those who believe in some form of deistic evolution to be rejecting evolution.

Deistic evolutionists may believe exactly what a scientist believes in terms of what actually happened, but their belief that God had a hand in designing or overseeing the natural processes involved would be enough for many scientists to dismiss them as religious crackpots who reject evolution. It's kind of ironic, actually, considering how often scientists accuse religionists of being closed-minded and intolerant.

-Rich
Click to expand...
Science is not at all closed minded about this. All that has to happen is for one of these creationists to bring some real evidence. That has never happened. Even saying that there must be some sort of designer guiding the process is nothing but religious nonsense. If they want to make a claim such as you have laid out then they must present evidence of god whose has a hand on the process. So, prove god exists.

I tell you if you want to disprove evolution, which by then would not immediately means that creation is the default correct answer. All that has to happen is for one piece of evidence to come forward. One crocoduck skeleton, one fossil in the wrong strata, etc. But each piece of evidence actually adds to evolutions understanding, never subtracting from it.
 
write-stuff said:
You seem to misunderstand the word "theory", but that doesn't surprise me. In your use it is conjecture or supposition. It means something completely different in science.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." That's as good as any simple definition. We could tidy it up a bit by adding in the "selective forces" thing.

Evolution is evident all around us in the weeds we pluck from our yards, to the food we eat, to moths in Great Britain. It is demonstrated in the fossil record and I'm sure Steingar will be able to explain how we visualize it in DNA.
Click to expand...

I am hoping he chimes in as this is really more up his alley.

I agree with what you have said too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top