Sad indeed, jock. Their knowledge source is Murdoch researched.

Politicians (from either party) in general could care less about science (right or wrong) unless it benefits their political agenda. We so easily overlook how politicians use/used "science" to say by the year 2000 we'd run out of oil, the hole in the ozone was going to continue growing until it covered the whole earth, how ethanol was the great savior to stop greenhouse gases, the ice in the arctic isn't shrinking, or silicone breast implants caused all sorts of medical problems. The real science didn't support any of these arguments yet they were or now are all used for political gains.

So why could politicians care less about real science? Science does not fit nicely into a sound bite or involve sex, so the average American voter could care less. The average voter is mostly concerned about being able to claim their own holier than thou attitude based off whatever is politically correct for the day. They (as a whole) often fail to read or understand scientific materials. You don't see science journals in the check out line do you?

Offer a scientific article to 100 people on the street and ask them to read it and for their opinion after doing so. I'd bet you wouldn't find a handful who would read it. Most would go oh I don't understand science or that's too hard. Now tell 100 people on the street you have the nude pics of Lindsey Lohan or gossip about a movie star and you'd get 80 that would stop to look.

Jack,

Obama has made numerous attempts to fight climate change, but the Party of No has always killed his efforts. If we want to save this planet we need to get the GOP our of their majority position, Four more years of inaction may very well take us over the tipping point.

You guys do realize it's already too late to stop any sort of climate change, yes? It's going to happen, regardless of the source (humans or nature). I definitely still think that finding ways to produce cleaner and more efficient energy is an excellent goal, but I don't really like people distorting facts to force others towards that goal. And we're not doing this to "save the planet", we're doing it to save ourselves. Earth will get along just fine without us...

"Scientific fact" is an oxymoron. At best, evidence can be axiomatic but never a complete fact or be "real." People are suffering from scientism in the forms of either implying more precision or confidence in a theory than is justified by the observations or by dogmatic acceptance of such theories. Scientific skepticism requires confidence to always stay below 100%.

And a politician talking about moon colonies while campaigning on the space coast is simple pandering and apparently the voters recognized it as such.

peanut, does that mean that religious dogma is more acceptable than what you call scientific "dogma?"

If you would say yes, then you are insulting your own position and ignore the merits of science. If you would say no, then at least you are consistent even if your views on the ability of man, through science, to discover physical truths seem underinformed at best and just plain hostile to reason, evidence, and testable reality at worst.

A fact is a fact, and throwing the word "scientific" in front of it doesn't change the meaning of the word. Science is a system of thought that tests the veracity of claims made about relationships between facts. If the relationship between facts, as claimed in a hypothesis, can be verified consistently by any arbitrary number of interested, disinterested, or uninterested independent observers, then what you have is a valid description of a relationship between facts. It doesn't mean it is the ONLY valid relationship between those facts, and it doesn't make it more than an idealized model of a relationship.

For example, while Newton's descriptions of gravity and motion are valid models in our everyday lives, Einstein's theory of relativity is required to describe these things in circumstances that we don't typically encounter (e.g. at very high speeds). Relativity reduces to Newton's descriptions when assumptions are applied that reduce the scope of the theory to our everyday experiential frame of reference. That is an example of science refining its previous work.

Sometimes previous work, or scientific knowledge if you will, is replaced altogether, but that happens far less often than anti-science types would like to believe. That isn't a weakness in science itself, but a weakness in human understanding. It is absolutely a STRENGTH of science to take in new information and iterate itself to levels of greater understanding and theoretical scope.

Arguing that science changes and so therefore science is flimsy is like arguing that a building is weak because cracked and broken bricks were discarded during construction.

ConstitutionThumper,

Sometimes previous work, or scientific knowledge if you will, is replaced altogether, but that happens far less often than anti-science types would like to believe.

I was recently challenged to find an example of this. I couldn't think of one. There are major refinements and there are minor refinements. I don't recall an instance of anybody practicing the scientific method being so fundamentally wrong that an entire body of knowledge had to be discarded outright with no hope of refinement. For example, blood-letting is an example of a body of knowledge being replaced, but blood-letting was not based on the scientific method, it was a belief without any facts to back it up. Can you think of an example?

By definition, all dogma is irrational and closeminded. I only include Religion for its non-mystical, "social cohesion" affect WITHIN itself which is usually overwhelmed by its devisiveness against non-members. Nevertheless, its has enough followers that it has to be dealt with. Even directly observable 'facts' still rely on the observer's point-of-view. Referring the gravity, even Einstein said that Newton was wrong about gravity but close enough for the real world. And in pure scientific parlance, Einstein may someday be shown to be wrong too. Hawkings has backtracked on some ideas he once thought were pretty solid. We have to call "facts" an axiom to acknowledge that things cant be 100% proven forever and ever. They're just our best theory so far.

brokinarrow: "You guys do realize it's already too late to stop any sort of climate change, yes?"

It's too late to stop some of it from happening, but it is a cumulative problem with a big lag. The more we reduce greenhouse emissions now, the less the overall climate effect will be decades from now.

Brokinarrow

... And we're not doing this to "save the planet", we're doing it to save ourselves. Earth will get along just fine without us...

Of course the problem is "can we survive without the planet". We are naturally dependant on the environment for food and other resources. Unless your suggesting we just move 6 billion people into domed cities, 'saving the planet' is a very worthwild aim.

Too late to stop it but we can lessen the impact.

Broken arrow -- your perspective is spot on.

Thou should not post factually incorrect, not to mention, outright lies. Conservatives are much smarter than liberals, and tend to do more for the American worker and entrepreneur. Maybe you should try working for a living, instead of griping about a perceived injustice of which you have no proof.

the conservative-masses are complete idiots; and push any scientific thought away imediately

Maybe the conservatives should read this study or better yet get someone of average intelligence (if they have one in the family, doubtful but one can hope) to read it to them..... maybe drawing little pictures so they can wrap their little pea brains around the concepts outlined. ROFL!

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

Yes Barney... that's clearly the case because they have to be anti-science in order to get their support of their base. Oh wait... that shows the opposite of what you're saying.

Barnyfife,

Conservatives are much smarter than liberals

My intention isn't to bash conservatives, but rather the sanctimonious and bumptious attitude you portray. Here's a quote from the study: "Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found."

Barnyfife, I've read some of your posts, and I see a spate of evolution denials, animosity against environmentalists, and chauvinistic theism. I don't mean the kind of theism where you say "I think it's probable that there is a god, and I'm going to live as if there were one," but rather the "you're a bumbling idiot if you think God doesn't exist, and I look forward to seeing you burn in hell," kind of theism. All I see are other people's ideas behind your blatant bigotry. Do you have any fervent beliefs that weren't handed down to you by someone else?

All you people that are constantly stereotyping your opposite party are part of the problem we face in politics today: You sling mud instead of trying to find common ground to make compromises on... you know, actually getting something done.

People have the most "common ground" with those they live on "common ground" with. More would get done if more were done at the local levels-- and mistakes would be more contained. DC is just a blackhole in Reality.

Brokinarrow,

I don't stereotype. I analyze trends. The Republicans are trending towards anti-science. It has been going on for 40 years, maybe longer. It may be the fault of politicians who make science into a political wedge just so they can get elected. But it is equally the fault of the voters who swallow what the politicians are saying and vote for them.

I agree with some of what your saying politics should not use science as a political wedgeto get elected, but you have republicans who are christians who believe in science with facts and then you have liberal democrats pushing there agenda through what they call is science like evolution and other things that have no facts. so If you analyze trends like you say you do dont you see whats going on like I do liberal science versus christianity. its funny that they call uneducated guesses and theorys science I dont I need facts, proof, evidence that there theories are correct but until then dont call it science or use it to decieve people

scientists are true geeks;

they camp out in the arctic and measure tiny changes;

they have no agenda except to collect data

shallowred, that has been proven to be true 100% of the time. Every scientist I have ever met was in Antarctica.

That's why peer review is such an important thing.

The vast majority of scientists have exceptionally high integrity, and the few who don't are fairly easy to ferret out with the peer review system. It's not perfect but it is the best we've got. Most scientists are in the field because they genuinely are interested in the truth, and the essence of science is rigorous adherence to being objective. Even most industry scientists try to do this. Although clearly some do not. Government scientists are generally pretty good,although they are more likely to be censored, then academic scientists.

Scientists are subject to unnatural selection. If your results support some wealthly peoples' (of govt) views, they'll give you a grant and you continue to work. If they dont, you dont get money and you stop doing science. This quickly aligns all studies with the views of the bill payers.

"Studies" are not science.

I agree with your criticism of the way science is funded, though. That doesn't stop good science from being performed. It creates a climate where bad science may be rewarded or used as propaganda (marijuana "research" done by the federal government is a shining example of this that is pretty much obvious to everyone).

But again, that can not be a criticism of science because true science is not motivated by profit or politics. I would, furthermore, make an educated guess and say that the vast majority, if not all, of bad science can be discovered as such by good scientists and discarded. If the general population were more critical and reasonable then much of this bad science would be transparent and associated propaganda would be totally useless. But, until people realize that a "study" is not good science, we will all be hung out to dry by the lowest common denominators among us.

peanutGalleryTheater,

Do you know how a grant works? You're given money to do research. The research may not be favorable to whomever is footing the bill. Generally an oil company won't have a huge press release that says "OUR STUDY FINDS GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL EVERYBODY HEAD FOR THE HILLS." They'll stuff it away quietly. The principle investigator submits a paper to a scientific journal anyway. The average person isn't gonna shell out hundreds of dollars per year to read scientific journals.

If you're doing science to achieve the outcome your grant-giver wants, you're a shill and a fraud, not a scientist. If your work is published, people WILL find out you're a fraud and out you publicly.

Here's an example. Andrew Wakefield was a surgeon and researcher. He published a study about the link between autism and vaccines. His motive was to show that the MMR vaccine increased the risk of autism and gastrointestinal disease. To achieve this, he designed a poor study and manipulated data. He was being paid for these results by a drug company who thought they could make more money by having three different vaccines given, instead of a single vaccine that protects against three diseases. He did not disclose this conflict of interest.

The journal that published his paper retracted it. The man himself was disgraced and lost his license to practice medicine. No research lab will hire him. Everything the man has ever done is under close scrutiny. He will never work again as a researcher or surgeon.

ConstitutionThumper,

But, until people realize that a "study" is not good science, we will all be hung out to dry by the lowest common denominators among us.

A lot of the problem is science reporting. Journalists come up with headlines like "Scientists say sleep is important." It's enough to make me, as a scientist, bang my head on my desk repeatedly. Polarized issues such as evolution in the classroom will always be polarized. Politics are deep in those kinds of issues, even though it doesn't really matter. The scientist makes a principled stand on the facts. The public makes a principled stand on faith. Both believe if they give an inch of ground it will be a slippery slope into a bad place. Climate change is caught in politics because of money and the size of the claims.

Do you seriously think his patron didnt know what result Wakefield would find? Once it was published, GOOD scientists challenged it and prevailed. GOOD scientists shouldnt be married to a particular result. They should be dedicated to a PROCESS of observation, challenge and debate that leads to the most likely theory until more evidence comes to the debate. Anything that involves interpretation of evidence is subject to challenge. Too often 'evidence' is called "facts' which to me, implies too much certainty to allow more honest debate. Given complete criteria, I think a direct observation could be as close to fact as anybody could possibly get-- such as "normal humans see the sky as being blue except for clouds, etc". Or "assuming the picture is authentic (which I dont challenge), the earth is round."

The problem is that science is about uncertainty. whereas politics and religion are about ideology. Most scientists know very well what the uncertainty is in their work, but if we emphasize that in presentations to a lay audience we get tuned out. And admitting any uncertainty at all will give political extremists something to pounce on.

Climate change provides an obvious example. We had a pretty good idea what was going on 20 years ago, but we weren't sure. The Luntz memo made it very clear that exploiting and exagerrating that uncertainty would be a key conservative strategy. BUt now we are are oretty sure we have AGW right and the only uncertainty is in the details. But still the deniers will pounce on any little thing.

No, the debate is never over in science, but science does become good enough to act upon at some point and we are well past that point with climate change.

Scientific research papers are put to a rigorous test by peer review from the scientific community. Generally to get a result that isn't true a scientist will have to manipulate the data or performed a biased study. As much as any organization may want a particular conclusion, there's no fooling or buying off the entire scientific community. Due to the abstract nature and level of technical knowledge required to understand the research, it's easy to fool the layperson, but you can't fool the experts. I agree with jock59801 that opponents to the outcome of the research monopolize on the uncertainty, and I feel that's because arguing with the science itself is a losing argument as the research piles up.

The process of the opponents losing ground is aptly described as if a ship were sinking: we start with "no the ship isn't sinking" and move on to "OK the ship is taking on water, but it's not sinking" and only when it becomes so obvious that you can't even fool the layperson does the admission finally come "OK the ship is sinking."

Actually, a moon base is not a bad idea. There is abundant energy available in the form of helium 3. Most building supplies for a colony are already there, and it could prove to be a life boat for humanity in the event of a cataclysmic event on Earth. Also a good stepping stone to promote colonization of the rest of the Solar System.

The moon base was pandering. He didnt make a peep about it until he got to the space coast.

I'd love to see more manned space exploration. Necessity is the mother of invention. But I'm not stupid either. Gingrich was pandering.

Nope, you definitely hit every stereotype in the book. Would you like me to rattle off the ones for you "hippy, tree huggin, pot smokin, abortionist, socialist liberals"? I find stereotypes in general to be rather offensive, and it just shows that you lack the intellect to put forth a proper argument against the issues.

and rather ironic on an article about the purity of science. :)

Questioning science is not anti-science. Its what science is supposed to be. The only people who have a problem with that are the one's who want their theories blindly accepted without debate. Picture al gore waiving his hands saying "the debate is over." When did it start?

There is a big difference between questioning science with the purpose of finding answers and questioning science with the purpose of finding "gaps" in evidence and then using said "gaps" as justification to say that science is wrong. The latter is usually dressed up as the former to appear credible, even though the conclusion is specious.

I'm all for debate in science. I am not for scientific debate in politics. People get this democratic mindset that the most popular idea is the right idea. That's not how science works. I am not for scientific debate in a primary school classroom. It takes years of learning to be able to carry on a scientific debate. Kids don't know enough, not their fault.

Questioning science is not anti-science. Questioning science and suggesting something non-scientific in its place is anti-science. Here's Rick Perry, since he's out of the running:

"I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution."

That is anti-science. It sounds like a political compromise, but it is anti-science.

Intelligent Design: show the evidence and withstand the logical challenges. See if that theory is as likely as evolution. "God said so in this book" doesnt carry alot a weight in a science-based debate.

scientists don't want their theories blindly accepted without debate. The debate starts as soon as they publish their theories. Evolution is fact; well past the theory stage. It's a fact of life like the rocks you live on and the science of geology. Face it; the only ones fighting the "theory" of evolution are creationists who pig headly believe that some goat herders 2000 years ago figured out EVERYTHING end of story. That is just plain DUMB.

Science and technology only determine what CAN be done. Politics, Ethics, Morality, Religion, Economics, etc still determine what SHOULD be done. The Nazis where very scientific about gas chambers and medical experiments but doing those things were still evil.

I don't know anybody who wantd that, and I have never heard of anybody who wants that. But thanks for demonstrating how some people turn science political.

Johnny,

Where did you get your info on the "christian right"?

They don't have to care - baby Jesus is going to take care of everyone anyway whether they die young or deplete the biosphere!

Consume away!

I'm seem to remember a very similar phrase from one of Hitler's speeches-- but my german is kinda rusty.

That's because many people consider ignorance to be a virtue. "Don't know nothin' and proud of it. Makes me a real person, not some elite."

That's survival in ANY political system. Even tyrannical dictators have to provide enough goodies to enough people to do the skullcracking against the rest of the population to stay in power. The only time a dictator falls when when the people around them consider him a bad source of future goodies; like dead, about to die, sanctioned without alternatives, etc.

Allow me to interject a pragmatic viewpoint: Energy independence is a matter of national security. We are beholden to the whims of some sketchy characters in the middle east for our energy needs. Cleaner energy is a bonus that goes along with energy independence.

Well said pragmatic. Although we can have independence with the "cleaner" part and that's actually looking more likely in the short-term; not that i wouldnt prefer the cleaner bonus. Pollution = waste = higher cost = conservation is the cleanest energy. The main problem comes down to who will pay the transition costs. I find it kind of bipolar that people complain about the big evil oil companies then push them to spend their money on clean energy to preserve themselves. Like they'd stop behaving evil just because they have windmills or something. I say let the oil companies die off along with their fossil fuels and lets see what the next group of corporate cultures will be like. Dont know what we'll get but we know what we'll be getting rid of.

Don't want to get pulled deeply into the climate change thing but this meme about how climate science is a scam and science is seeing the light about how wrong climate scientists are is just patently false. It's a classic case of a statement being made with much bluster and absolutely NO science to back it up.

Here's Dr. Jeff Masters from Weather Underground addressing this very issue. He's a PhD and former Hurricane Hunter. He apparently hasn't seen the light:

"Despite public belief that climate scientists are divided about the human contribution to our changing climate, polling data show high agreement among climate scientists that humans are significantly affecting the climate. A 2008 poll of actively publishing climate scientists found that 97% said yes to the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" In my personal experience interacting with climate scientists, I have found near-universal support for this position. For example, I am confident that all 23 climate scientists and meteorologists whom I am personally acquainted with at the University of Michigan's Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Science would agree that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."

go review that 97% figure from the univeristy of illinois masters student thesis. you'll find that it was 75/77 self-selected 'expert' responders out of 10,000 questionaires sent out. you'll also find that nearly all skeptical scientists agree with the are humans a 'significant contributing factor' question and the 'are temperatures higher than 1850' question. this is because they all agree that co2 alone will cause a 1.1 degree C rise in temperature for a doubling of co2 from preindustrial levels of about 250ppm. it's climate alarmists who postulate an unobserved 'forcing' or feedback of 3x, 5x or even 10x that rise in temperature who are distorting the science most egregiously. and to declare that the science is 'settled' is not only disingenuous, but totally specious as well - if temperatures rise 1.1 deg C, or even 2 deg C, which is where the recent schmittner, et al (a noted warmist) paper would put the middle-range risk, that doesnt really answer the question about what should be done. are the consequences of a 2 deg rise worse than the consequences of seriously harming our economy by restricting energy that poor people around the world need to rise out of poverty? that is far from settled, and is by far the more important question. and it needs to be answered as much by politicians and voters as by scientists.

Well the assumption in the "settled science" matter is always that if something isn't settled then it is always biased for the "alarmists" perspective - a bias that is quite ironic given the fact that bias is the very thing the denialists are so bent about in the first place. But any number of model realizations and forcing mechanisms have indicated that our best simulations with our best estimates for the various parameters are not reflecting reality observed on the ground - and they aren't always overestimating the magnitude of the change. The science may indeed be "unsettled" but I'm not too keen on making that HUGE assumption that settling it would work out in our favor... we may see things there we really don't want to know about... Melting of the arctic permafrost to release gigatons of carbon / methane is not what I would consider distorted science - it is an observed phenomenon. But then I guess making any kind of statement based on observation is considered "alarmist" nowdays...

Well if we are going to be constantly accused of it - here's some more "alarmist" thoughts from that noted radical Dr. Jeff Masters:

"It is good that we have scientists skeptical of the prevailing consensus challenging it, though, because that is how scientific progress is made. It may be that one of the scientists making these challenges will turn out to be the next Einstein or Galileo, and overthrow the conventional scientific wisdom on climate change. But Einsteins and Galileos don't come along very often. The history of science is littered with tens of thousands of discredited scientific papers that challenged the accepted scientific consensus and lost. If we rely on hopes that the next Einstein or Galileo will successfully overthrow the current scientific consensus on climate change, we are making a high-stakes, low-probability-of-success gamble on the future of civilization."

if you're actually interested in the argument, google dr. david evans' 'the skeptic's case' - it's pretty recent and the data might surprise you

economykiller, you are still flat-out lying, and by now you should know that.

economykiller, I can't believe your cast such false claims. I hope people see you for what your are.

A quick scan of the Wikipedia page on thorium informs one that, although a vibrant thorium effort is well-warranted (and well under way) within the nuclear energy industry, it can't be expected to do quite all of that.

Some people are interested in things bigger than themselves.