Scientific Scandal

Interesting. Not totally convinced we need to "save the planet", because whatever we do is for our own selfish reasons as a species, or more accurately what a group of politicians wants to do man's liberty, self-determination, free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to defend himself from being harmed by others who want to take his stuff, or harm his family.

Be forewarned, there are forces at play neither of us has really seen (no matter how high the viewpoint), because what is being done is being done in secret, by agreement and consent of the hyper-wealthy and powerful in the name of control of the entire globe on a political basis. That is the part of this whole thing that reeks, and causes the true righteous to cry out for equality, justice, and an end to nefarious intentions of the cruel dictators (they themselves know who they are, and you can also know them by the fruit they bear). I understand your intentions are not aligned with these same people (at least I hope and pray not, for your own soul's sake), but your choosing to be on the bespoken side of their agenda makes you an unwitting pawn in their game. Your and they are not playing the same dice that God is.

God's dice always come around to "yes" and "true" and "love". As scientists, we roll the dice for God, as a child stirs his mother's recipe.

So, if I am standing with the 'wrong group' of people, then what does the 'right group' look like? What agenda do THEY promote? Are they for or against Fracking? Recycling? The TPP? Solar Power? Japanese Whaling? Civil Rights? State's Rights? Are they Red? Blue? Green? Plaid?

The fun part is, you are all grown up now, and it is up to you to decide which side of each issue to be on, and I would be careful (if it was me) of choosing to "blanket" pick sides because I agree with part of a group on one issue.

It just makes sense to keep your mind open enough to accept new data when it becomes available. The problem is see in most sources of news/information is that they have already decided how the issue is to be painted, and there is never a blank canvas, or a blank agenda. You as the consumer of information may actually never get to "see" the agenda as it exists in reality.

Ever heard of Machiaveli?

"I understand your intentions are not aligned with these same people (at least I hope and pray not, for your own soul's sake), but your choosing to be on the bespoken side of their agenda makes you an unwitting pawn in their game. Your and they are not playing the same dice that God is."

"The fun part is, you are all grown up now, and it is up to you to decide which side of each issue to be on, and I would be careful (if it was me) of choosing to "blanket" pick sides because I agree with part of a group on one issue."

Interesting 'advice,' you tell me I'm siding with the 'wrong guys,' but then you won't say what identifies the 'right guys' from the 'wrong guys.'

Then again, from a number of your phrases, I can infer who you consider the 'right guys' to be, and the stated location in your profile supports my theory.

They say a fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. I'll choose to end what is becoming a political/ideological discussion here, thus changing the subject to 'anything else,' and avoid earning the fanatic label for myself.

Adreasler: Now you have progressed to the point of deciding what camp I am in, or what opinions I hold, simply based on my location? Wow. Karnak the Magnificent.

How many fingers am I holding up, and which one is it? LOL

Man, I totally appreciate your opinions, and if I didn't like you, I would not enter into such banter with you. To debate the issues - hopefully calmly and rationally is the best service we could render to each other. If it appears that I simply am slandering the "other" side (whatever that is), then I truly apologize. If I wish to hold you to a high standard, I should also accept that standard as my own code of conduct.

Getting back to the original question: Science is supposed to be a quest for truth. Some will debate there is no single defined truth, only relative truth. I beg to differ. Truth can be palpable, weighed, measured, quantitated, and is always repeatable.

It is after all only liars who must strain and strive to remember which lie they told when. When scientists arbitrarily manipulate data that does not fit the "pre-supposed" theory, they not only harm their careers, they harm the whole issue related to the data in an irreversible way - even when they are caught, or catch a case of morality, the damage is already done.

All I have been saying and continue to say, is either way, keep an open mind. It could be all parties possess a quantum of truth. It is up to each to assess, and decide where the mass of truth rests.

By the way, since several of you slammed Ted Cruz, I will now slam Hillary Clinton. Her actions on many occasions are down right criminal. Her speech the other day about wanting to control speech so that Freedom of Speech is no longer the law of the land, Freedom of Religion is no longer the law of the land, etc, is in fact Anti-American, and should prove that she is unfit to lead.

Amen. But I would add that she is only symptomatic of a general trend in US politics. It is exceedingly difficult to find a politician who is driven by the Constitution, and our "Inalienable Rights" as enumerated (They, and the Supremes, ALIENATE our "inalienable rights" on a routine basis, no?) in the current environment. Probably not in the last 20 years have I seen a politician I thought I could trust to hold to the "Constitutionalist" promises so many make.

But I would agree, Hillary and the Present POTUS are two of the worst examples. However, they MUST be included with many of the present Congress, unfortunately on both sides of the aisle.

PLAID. And if you read James Stewart, in #19, in it's entirety, you'll see why. I agree with him. The labels, Red, Blue, Green, (I realize you just made up plaid, but I LIKE it for it's implications) are created by the press, and the people who own/manipulate/feed/pay for the press.

It is part of the human condition to want to put everyone in a box. The modern day press likes to design the box, then define the people to put in it, then put people in it whether they truly fit or not. Hence the whole issue in every questionaire fielded nowadays, asking for a predefined "race". I have a daughter, whose friend is bi-racial, and a daughter who has many "multi-racial" friends. How do they answer an "are you this or that" question? None of them fit the box.

Politically, and socially, and in every other "ly", I do not fit the box. I am appalled more often than not by what I am offered to vote for in elected office, and I cannot remember in my 42 years of voting having but one candidate for whom I WANTED to vote.

So, on the environmental issues, particularly where politics is driving (pseudo) science, I am definitely PLAID.

Reminds me of the global warming issue.

Don't worry.

NASA's Earth Science Budget Slashed by House Science Committee

The Flat Earthers have put an end to any true research on global warming.

This idiot is quoted," Ted Cruz (R-Texas) as an opportunity to claim that Earth sciences aren't "hard science."

Ted Cruz would not know hard science if it bit him in the butt.

So the people who voted to send Orion into space and upped the planetary science budjet are "Flat Earthers"?

Calling people names is not hard science either.

The amount of hard science presented on this forum is miniscule.

My opinion of Ted Cruz, who through some abortion of the political process was made head of this committee, is that he is a complete idiot who has no business on any "scientific" committee.

Ted Crux (R-Texas) wouldn't know hard SCIENCE from hard CIDER.

"Based on Adreasler's statistics based approach, we should all become Christians, and pray to be saved at the final judgment, since if we are wrong about resurrection, it will not matter, but if right, then we are accountable only to God."

I take no credit for that theory, as it is merely a restating of what Blaise Pascal has said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Even my comments on Global Warming are based on Pascal's Wager. If we could sit on another planet and watch what happens on Earth from a safe distance, then it might be worth sitting around and debating for decades, but since the stakes of this wager are 'all or nothing,' I would prefer to 'Rage against the dying of the light' rather that sit back like Vladimir and Estragon saying 'there's nothing to be done.'

More like the Global Warning Issue, or was it the Global Waning Issue. Time changes so many things.

I am still waiting for it to warm up enough here where I live, so I can prove I actually do something constructive for a living (help generate electricity other than the static E that can/cannot be produced from striking keys on a keyboard).

adreasler said,

"If Global Warming is not human-caused, then there is nothing we can do, but if it is, then we can do something to fight it *IF* we choose to. So why not act as if Global Warming is human-caused, at least until we find proof otherwise? It might do nothing, or it might 'save the planet,' by which I mean it will keep the planet habitable for us. Is the End of Humanity worth more corporate profits for the Oil Barons?"

The presumption is made that mankind is big enough to impact the Universe. We are a miniscule part of this magnificent Universe. We aren't that significant that we are going to unbalance the Natural Laws that are in place.

We certainly impact local environments through pollution, etc. but we do not impact natural law. We need to be good stewards of Earth which we inhabit. We don't do this by crying "wolf" and saying that "the sky is falling". When we take out people's preconceived ideas and political agendas the data is inconclusive at best.