# Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society



## Big Don (Oct 10, 2010)

* 			Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society	*

     	 			 			Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19		 		 			 			Hal Lewis		 		 		
The GWPF.org EXCERPT:



    From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
   To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
 6 October 2010
   Dear Curt:
   When I first joined the American  Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much  gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood  (a threat against  which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice  of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and  abstinence---it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of  worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years  ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious  social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were  zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure  on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe  was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were  further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of  Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists  beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In  the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President,  noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted  that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute  could there be?
   How different it is now. The  giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the  raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much  more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional  jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being  an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am  forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the  Society.
   It is of course, the global  warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that  has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a  rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific  fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the  faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the  ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the  facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay  scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make  that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
   So what has the APS, as an  organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the  corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.
END EXCERPT


----------



## elder999 (Oct 10, 2010)

I think my signature pretty much says all that needs to be said.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 10, 2010)

I downloaded those documents the day after they were released.  In the intervening time, I've read them and have poured over their content.  IMO, I think they reveal an overt subversion of the peer review process on a massive level.  They reveal massive manipulation, fabrication, and destruction of data.  They reveal a blind trust among politically aligned scientists who interpret data without questioning it's source.  They reveal an international conspiracy, run by a few people, where most people involved have no clue.  

The press coverage of these documents has been poor.  The MSM cherry picks information from various snippets and shows how they are all taken out of context, well, they are taken out of context.  The context of the whole of the files that were released show a pattern of obfuscation and deception that most people wouldn't believe possible.  The Climategate documents are the Pentagon Papers of our times.  

The release of these documents hopefully put the globalist Carbon Tax and Cap and Trade scams six feet under.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 11, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> I downloaded those documents the day after they were released. In the intervening time, I've read them and have poured over their content. IMO, I think they reveal an overt subversion of the peer review process on a massive level. They reveal massive manipulation, fabrication, and destruction of data. They reveal a blind trust among politically aligned scientists who interpret data without questioning it's source. They reveal an international conspiracy, run by a few people, where most people involved have no clue.
> 
> The press coverage of these documents has been poor. The MSM cherry picks information from various snippets and shows how they are all taken out of context, well, they are taken out of context. The context of the whole of the files that were released show a pattern of obfuscation and deception that most people wouldn't believe possible. The Climategate documents are the Pentagon Papers of our times.
> 
> The release of these documents hopefully put the globalist Carbon Tax and Cap and Trade scams six feet under.


 
Only in a world where the WTC was a controlled demolition inside job.:lfao:

please read this.:



> The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that it had seen *no evidence to support charges* that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming &#8212; two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues
> 
> Phil Willis, the committee's chairman, said of the e-mails that "there's no denying that some of them were pretty appalling." But the committee found no evidence of anything beyond "a blunt refusal to share data," adding that *the idea that Jones was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that weakened the case for global warming was clearly wrong*.


 
and here:



> The climate scientists at the centre of a media storm were today cleared of accusations that they fudged their results and silenced critics to bolster the case for man-made global warming.
> Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the world-leading Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) are not in doubt. They did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, the panel found, while key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.


----------



## crushing (Oct 11, 2010)

There you have it.  Links a to a website that says that a committee says "nothing to see here, move along."  What more do you want?  Sure, they say on one hand there was a "blunt refusal to share data", but then in the next quote claim "key data was freely available to any 'competent' researcher."  Clearly this suggests that anyone not on board with the CRU is incompetent.  Poisoning the peer review well isn't perverting it, is it?

At any rate...  Don't be a denier, the science is in!


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 11, 2010)

What do you expect when you investigate yourself for wrong doing?  Oh, and Elder999, it might be...and in the future you're going to have to get used to that thought.  I love your signature by the way...


----------



## elder999 (Oct 11, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> . I love your signature by the way...


 
Yeah, it's kind of the whole point here.


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 11, 2010)

2 things stand out when I read that exerpt. One is the 'indignation' that physists may just do research that have practical application. Get real, while science for science's sake is great, at some point, that reaearch has to drive to something.

And on his comment on climate change, being a physicist does not make him qualified to comment on climatology.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 11, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> And on his comment on climate change, being a physicist does not make him qualified to comment on climatology.



What are you qualified to comment on?  Are you qualified enough to make the above comment?  Yes, this is absurd, but so is this tyranny of paper our society worships instead of actual intelligence and ability.  Check your premises, the two do not necessarily relate.

I'm not qualified to make this comment though, so no worries, pass the pakalolo...  

BTW, this is a pet peeve of mine and I'm not slinging arrows at you CanuckMA.  It's this idea...


----------



## Carol (Oct 11, 2010)

Environmental research is frequently performed by astrophysicists or physical chemists.  I don't understand how a physicist is unqualified to comment on climatology?


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 11, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Yes, this is absurd, but so is this tyranny of paper our society worships instead of actual intelligence and ability.  Check your premises, the two do not necessarily relate.



Sometimes it's a tyranny, sometimes it's a decades long training process in order to become truly knowledgeable in the field.  I've spent 11 years training in my field now, 15 if you count my undergraduate degree, and despite my PhD, I'm still considered a "trainee".  I've authored 10 papers now, with a few more on the way, and still a "trainee".  Do you know what variables to take into account when performing a non-linear regression of a drug response plot?  Do you know how MAPK proteins interface with TNFalpha receptors to induce inflammation and cell stress?  If I told you that RANTES is the natural ligand of the kappa opioid receptor, could you tell me if I was right or wrong?

Truly knowing a field is the work of a lifetime.  I have no ability to tell Hal Lewis (or Elder999 for that matter) the first thing about physics, and they have no ability to tell me my cell signaling work is incorrect.  That is why we have peer review, because the peers are the only ones with the knowledge to even begin to evaluate the work.  Can I make pronouncements about the field of climate science or knowledgeably dismiss the entire field?  Not a chance, and neither can Hal Lewis, or anyone else here.  Much less the legions of committed ideologues that have decided what the truth is about an entire scientific discipline based on their political views without the slightest backing or evidence.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 11, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Sometimes it's a tyranny, sometimes it's a decades long training process in order to become truly knowledgeable in the field.



How do you differentiate this?



Empty Hands said:


> Much less the legions of committed ideologues that have decided what the truth is about an entire scientific discipline based on their political views without the slightest backing or evidence.



How do you recognize and avoid this?

This isn't just directed at Empty Hands.  I'd like to hear anyone's opinion on this matter.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 11, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Truly knowing a field is the work of a lifetime.  I have no ability to tell Hal Lewis (or Elder999 for that matter) the first thing about physics, and they have no ability to tell me my cell signaling work is incorrect.  That is why we have peer review, because the peers are the only ones with the knowledge to even begin to evaluate the work.  Can I make pronouncements about the field of climate science or knowledgeably dismiss the entire field?  Not a chance, and neither can Hal Lewis, or anyone else here.  Much less the legions of committed ideologues that have decided what the truth is about an entire scientific discipline based on their political views without the slightest backing or evidence.



It seems to me -- and I did follow the link to see the whole letter -- that his problem was the process involved in reaching the conclusions and not the conclusions themselves.  It seems more like he's lost his faith in the ability of the association to properly conduct peer review and coordinate research with honesty and integrity.


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 11, 2010)

Carol said:


> Environmental research is frequently performed by astrophysicists or physical chemists. I don't understand how a physicist is unqualified to comment on climatology?


 



> *Harold Lewis* is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, Presidents Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)


 
Don't see a whole lot of climate or environmental work. Closest was chairing a study on nuclear winter. CLose, but not quite the study of climatology in a natural system.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 11, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Don't see a whole lot of climate or environmental work. Closest was chairing a study on nuclear winter. CLose, but not quite the study of climatology in a natural system.



This doesn't really help.  How do you know what this person knows or what he's read?  What do you think about those questions I posed to Empty Hands?  Those strike to the heart of what is being discussed (around) here, IMO.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 12, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> How do you differentiate this?



The nature of the work.  Could a knowledgeable lay person with a reasonable amount of training do the job or make valid judgments on the work?  In the case of my job, the answer is "no".  In the case of receptionist positions paying $9/hour which now require bachelor's degrees, the answer is obviously "yes".  Credentialism is a problem, but not generally in science.  



maunakumu said:


> How do you recognize and avoid this?



You recognize it by the nature of the arguments used.  Do the arguments address the actual thing in contention, or are they red herrings?  In the case of climate science, we hear a lot of dismissal of climate science based on what Al Gore is up to, how the liberals want to control your life, and how environmentalists want us to all live in the stone age.  True or false, you will notice that those arguments have nothing to do with climate science.  Or pseudo-scientific arguments will be used over and over, after they have been debunked.  Such as the old canard "why are there still monkeys?" when creationists challenge evolution.  You will know the argument can be taken seriously when it engages the science on a technical level.

As for avoidance, individuals or even governments can avoid people who make such arguments, but it cannot be avoided entirely.  Whenever science (or anything else) conflicts with emotional needs like political views, non-scientific or irrational arguments will be used to dismiss the science.  Creationism vs. evolution is a wonderful example of this in action.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 12, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> It seems to me -- and I did follow the link to see the whole letter -- that his problem was the process involved in reaching the conclusions and not the conclusions themselves.  It seems more like he's lost his faith in the ability of the association to properly conduct peer review and coordinate research with honesty and integrity.



He presented no evidence or argument that impeached peer review.  He made two claims: 1) the "ClimateGate" documents revealed the global warming "scam" (his word), and 2) the APS froze out member desires when making their global warming statement.  Even if both claims were true, they do not impeach peer review, since "ClimateGate" involved 2 out of thousands of peer scientists, and individual scientists, not organizations, always conduct peer review.  He presented not the slightest technical evidence, data or argument that called into question Global Warming, which is rather remarkable, since he had no difficulty in calling it a "scam."  This is not a scientific argument.  These are red herring arguments, which as I noted in my above post, is a mark of political ideology instead of scientific rigor.

The guy is a crank.  It's written all over this letter.  Everything from how scientific giants walked tall in the past (When he was an active scientist, natch.  How convenient.) to how science nowadays is corrupted and base.  How the past was pure and wonderful, and the present is evil and corrupt.  These are the exact same things you hear people say about The Kids These Days or how Even The Air Tasted Better Back Then.

This letter wasn't written in a scientific fashion.  Bring the data, or the Professor Emeritus is no better than a conspiracy theorist slavering all over himself on FreeRepublic.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 12, 2010)

I appreciate your thoughtful response and I'll try to reply later when I have more time.  However, I can give a short reply to this quote of yours.



Empty Hands said:


> You recognize it by the nature of the arguments used.  Do the arguments  address the actual thing in contention, or are they red herrings?  In the case of climate science, we hear a lot of dismissal of climate science based on what Al Gore is up to, how the liberals want to control your life, and how environmentalists want us to all live in the stone age.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skW6krOLL20&feature=related

What kind of argument is being offered here?

Google Splattergate.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 12, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> The nature of the work.  Could a knowledgeable lay person with a reasonable amount of training do the job or make valid judgments on the work?  In the case of my job, the answer is "no".  In the case of receptionist positions paying $9/hour which now require bachelor's degrees, the answer is obviously "yes".  Credentialism is a problem, but not generally in science.



Generally, this may be the case if we are comparing apples to t-bone steaks, like a PhD to a high school dropout, however, why isn't it possible for people in related fields, with similar levels of education, to be well read on a broad span of subjects?  I think perhaps we are getting hung up as a society on who can make "authoritative" comments on a subject, rather then looking at arguments presented.  

This is an obvious logical fallacy, btw.



Empty Hands said:


> You will know the argument can be taken seriously when it engages the science on a technical level.



This is a good benchmark, however, it is not flawless.  Technical arguments depend on many details, one of them are data sources and, often, these sources have been shown to be poisoned, manipulated, or fabricated.  

The Climategate documents are a good example of this.  Data from multiple sources was manipulated, created, and repackaged for dissemination to other research institutions who trusted in the good name of the institution.  This data was the basis for the IPCC report and a number of related reports.  

Climategate documents conversations from scientists about this matter, computer programmer notes on how this manipulation was done, and conversations about how the scientists were going to frustrate FIOA requests for the original data by other skeptical scientists.  The documents also record a concerted effort by this small group of scientists to deny funding, pull articles from peer review consideration in a broad spectrum of journals, and deny the tenure of skeptics.  

This could be the biggest case of scientific fraud in the history of science and as I read through these documents, I wonder if anyone would trust the scientific establishment again if the full story was released.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 12, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Generally, this may be the case if we are comparing apples to t-bone steaks, like a PhD to a high school dropout, however, why isn't it possible for people in related fields, with similar levels of education, to be well read on a broad span of subjects?



There is no "well read" in science, not at the level of the practicing scientist.  You can't read a few reviews here and there and call yourself knowledgeable.  To stay knowledgeable in a field, it must be your *job*.  We all devote hours every single week to staying on top of our disciplines, and it never ends.  There is such a vast amount of intricate and interlocking knowledge, much of it practical, that you can't possibly read a small amount and be knowledgeable.  A good example: I love advanced physics and astrophysics.  I read quite a lot.  But my understanding is stunted and puny, not the least because I don't have a solid grasp of the math.  If I wanted to be at the practicing scientist level in quantum physics or particle physics or whatever, I would have to start at the beginning and devote most of my time to it.  It would be the work of years.

You can't really appreciate how vast science is, even in our narrow specialties, until you try to master if yourself.  Like I said about myself, 11 years and 10 papers, and I'm still a trainee.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 12, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> There is no "well read" in science, not at the level of the practicing scientist.  You can't read a few reviews here and there and call yourself knowledgeable.  To stay knowledgeable in a field, it must be your *job*.  We all devote hours every single week to staying on top of our disciplines, and it never ends.  There is such a vast amount of intricate and interlocking knowledge, much of it practical, that you can't possibly read a small amount and be knowledgeable.  A good example: I love advanced physics and astrophysics.  I read quite a lot.  But my understanding is stunted and puny, not the least because I don't have a solid grasp of the math.  If I wanted to be at the practicing scientist level in quantum physics or particle physics or whatever, I would have to start at the beginning and devote most of my time to it.  It would be the work of years.
> 
> You can't really appreciate how vast science is, even in our narrow specialties, until you try to master if yourself.  Like I said about myself, 11 years and 10 papers, and I'm still a trainee.



Granted, I agree that it could be argued that there comes a point in any specialty where this is the case.  In my specialty, this certainly can be argued.  It isn't totally exclusive, however and I think you probably could find exceptions if you looked.  

However, how do you know that we are dealing with jargon on that kind of technical level?  Also, how do you assess the conflicting opinions of scientists in the same field from the outside looking in?  In this case, we have scientists in the same field, using the same data, and coming up with two very different conclusions.  How do you choose?

Lastly, how is anyone supposed to vote for representation based on opinions they are unqualified to judge and for representatives that have little if any background in science?  This last question implies that our political system is ripe for being scammed...


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 12, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> However, how do you know that we are dealing with jargon on that kind of technical level?



I'm not talking about jargon, I'm talking about knowledge.  You might understand perfectly well what all the words mean, and even have a good grasp of the concepts.  Let's say however that I claim in my scientific paper that Protein A has a certain effect when treated with Compound B in Context C.  That might be compelling to you, but what about the ancillary knowledge that Compound B is not valid in Context C?  There are thousands of little intersecting knowledge points like this that go into evaluating every scientific paper I read.  Every paper is weighed against the sum of my knowledge from many intersecting contexts.  It takes years to build up this kind of gestalt, and it is very difficult to evaluate papers without that context.



maunakumu said:


> Also, how do you assess the conflicting opinions of scientists in the same field from the outside looking in?  In this case, we have scientists in the same field, using the same data, and coming up with two very different conclusions.  How do you choose?



Generally, you don't.  Over time, the field will come to a consensus based on the weight of repeated evidence, sharpened by criticism and interaction between scientists in the field.  How could you possibly evaluate their positions on your own?  Even in the field, we generally don't "choose" which findings and arguments to believe, who we believe is shaped by whose data can be repeatedly verified by other laboratories around the world.  If none of your data can ever be replicated, people stop believing it.



maunakumu said:


> Lastly, how is anyone supposed to vote for representation based on opinions they are unqualified to judge and for representatives that have little if any background in science?  This last question implies that our political system is ripe for being scammed...



To our government's credit, scientists are heavily involved in the decision making processes that bear on science.  The heads of the NIH, NSF, and other agencies are all scientists.  Funding decisions at the NIH, and probably other agencies, are based on peer review and scoring of grants by independent scientists from all around the country.  There are oftentimes hearings where well known and respected scientists are called to testify, and sometimes the representatives even listen.  We should not have a technocracy, but you really do need that knowledge to make effective scientific decisions.  They aren't always listened to, but still.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 12, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> I'm not talking about jargon, I'm talking about knowledge.  You might understand perfectly well what all the words mean, and even have a good grasp of the concepts.  Let's say however that I claim in my scientific paper that Protein A has a certain effect when treated with Compound B in Context C.  That might be compelling to you, but what about the ancillary knowledge that Compound B is not valid in Context C?  There are thousands of little intersecting knowledge points like this that go into evaluating every scientific paper I read.  Every paper is weighed against the sum of my knowledge from many intersecting contexts.  It takes years to build up this kind of gestalt, and it is very difficult to evaluate papers without that context.



Jargon and knowledge are two sides of the same coin.  But that's a side issue.

There are two points that I'd like to express.

1.  Not all scientific arguments reach that level of technicality.  
2.  If you are "unqualified" to comment on climate science, how can you hold an opinion on it?  How can you vote based on that opinion?  How is the public supposed to consume/digest science?




Empty Hands said:


> Generally, you don't.  Over time, the field will come to a consensus based on the weight of repeated evidence, sharpened by criticism and interaction between scientists in the field.  How could you possibly evaluate their positions on your own?  Even in the field, we generally don't "choose" which findings and arguments to believe, who we believe is shaped by whose data can be repeatedly verified by other laboratories around the world.  If none of your data can ever be replicated, people stop believing it.



This is the ideal, but it is not always the practice.  The Climategate documents bear witness to this.  There are many other cases in the history of science where this was not the case.  Therefore, perhaps it is most proper to "I don't know" in response to a scientific debate with conflicting opinions such as this.  That is not what people do, however.  People do "choose" sides based off of a criteria that has yet to be defined in this discussion.  



Empty Hands said:


> To our government's credit, scientists are heavily involved in the decision making processes that bear on science.  The heads of the NIH, NSF, and other agencies are all scientists.  Funding decisions at the NIH, and probably other agencies, are based on peer review and scoring of grants by independent scientists from all around the country.  There are oftentimes hearings where well known and respected scientists are called to testify, and sometimes the representatives even listen.  We should not have a technocracy, but you really do need that knowledge to make effective scientific decisions.  They aren't always listened to, but still.



What about captured agencies?  What about revolving doors of influence, money, and ideology?  How much can you trust these agencies when they have become so politicized?


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 13, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> 2. If you are "unqualified" to comment on climate science, how can you hold an opinion on it? How can you vote based on that opinion? How is the public supposed to consume/digest science?


 
You can have a passing knowledge on the science and form an opinion. That does not mean your opinion is correct. Voting based on your opinion means that your vote may be incorrect. The public can digest science to a poiny, most of us will never have the deep understanding of any one complex facet of any discipline. I have a fair undestanding of a lot of science, does not mean I'm qualified to make judgement on any theories. Any more than a biologist can come out and state that string theory is bunk.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 13, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> 1.  Not all scientific arguments reach that level of technicality.



Perhaps not expressly, but it is always there lurking underneath the surface.  That knowledge underpins any scientific argument made.  If I claim that evolution is true, there is several hundred years worth of data and thought from competing and interlocking disciplines behind it.  Even making the claim that a fossil is "old" by radiocarbon dating is an argument that encompasses everything from geology to nuclear physics.  If you then want to claim that radiocarbon dating does not in fact prove that fossils are old (a claim made constantly by creationists) then all of that underlying data must be addressed.



maunakumu said:


> 2.  If you are "unqualified" to comment on climate science, how can you hold an opinion on it?  How can you vote based on that opinion?  How is the public supposed to consume/digest science?



If you haven't made at least a reasonable study of it, then you aren't entitled to an opinion.  At least a valid one.  You basically have two choices: master the data yourself, which will take years, or trust the weight of opinion of the experts.  In other words, it is unreasonable for a lay person to take the word of a few warming skeptics (that are actual scientists, I don't count politicos) over the thousands of other scientists who have helped form the consensus.  



maunakumu said:


> This is the ideal, but it is not always the practice.  The Climategate documents bear witness to this.  There are many other cases in the history of science where this was not the case.



Science is a self-correcting process, and always wins in the end.  Political constructions of science, from Lysenkoism to "German Physics", have always failed because the data does not support them.  The irrational predilections of even famous scientists (like Einstein) have always failed because the data do not support them.  Science is larger than human failings.



maunakumu said:


> Therefore, perhaps it is most proper to "I don't know" in response to a scientific debate with conflicting opinions such as this.



There is no scientific debate here.  The scientific debate is largely settled, at least over the basic question.  What we have here is a political debate that is twisting science to its own ends.  Perhaps given your mindset you can appreciate that the "controversy" is largely being manufactured by those seeking to protect their economic interests, mainly corporations involved in traditional energy and heavily polluting industries.



maunakumu said:


> What about captured agencies?  What about revolving doors of influence, money, and ideology?  How much can you trust these agencies when they have become so politicized?



You just have to stay on top of them and be vigilant.  Same as anything else.  I'm really only familiar with the NIH, but they are remarkably non-political.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 13, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> You can have a passing knowledge on the science and form an opinion. That does not mean your opinion is correct. Voting based on your opinion means that your vote may be incorrect.



How do you find out if your opinion is incorrect?  Do you do this consistently?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> If you haven't made at least a reasonable study of it, then you aren't entitled to an opinion.  At least a valid one.



Not true!  First, as you know, anyone can have an opinion.  But second, the validity of argument is based not just on scientific veracity but also upon logical constructs.  I do NOT have to be an expert in climate science to spot flaws in arguments.  And there are many.

I've read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  I doubt many laypersons have.  It's worth reading.  I don't have a lot of heartburn over the contents.  I do have a lot of heartburn over how those contents are often portrayed.

You said, I believe, that climate change is settled science.  It may be.  But public opinion over it is far from settled.  In fact, the tide (no pun intended) is clearly running against it at the moment.  The report can say what it says, and news organizations can twist it into saying whatever hand-wringing OMG! thing they want it to say, but the public has largely had enough of it.

It will be interesting to see where things go from here.


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 13, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> How do you find out if your opinion is incorrect? Do you do this consistently?


 
Absent of reading/hearing more arguments and trying to decipher the logic and validity of them, as well as knowing the competence of the argument makers, You can't really find out.


----------



## geezer (Oct 13, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Absent of reading/hearing more arguments and trying to decipher the logic and validity of them, as well as knowing the competence of the argument makers, You can't really find out.


 
You obviously have never been married.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 13, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Perhaps not expressly, but it is always there lurking underneath the surface.  That knowledge underpins any scientific argument made.  If I claim that evolution is true, there is several hundred years worth of data and thought from competing and interlocking disciplines behind it.  Even making the claim that a fossil is "old" by radiocarbon dating is an argument that encompasses everything from geology to nuclear physics.  If you then want to claim that radiocarbon dating does not in fact prove that fossils are old (a claim made constantly by creationists) then all of that underlying data must be addressed.



This is true in some circumstances, but not all.  The technicality of some arguments in science is variable.  You do not need to belong to a technocratic elite in order to understand science.



Empty Hands said:


> If you haven't made at least a reasonable study of it, then you aren't entitled to an opinion.  At least a valid one.  You basically have two choices: master the data yourself, which will take years, or trust the weight of opinion of the experts.  In other words, it is unreasonable for a lay person to take the word of a few warming skeptics (that are actual scientists, I don't count politicos) over the thousands of other scientists who have helped form the consensus.



This is a sad thought actually.  Imagine all of the science teachers who are believe that they are preparing their students for citizenship by giving them a liberal education in science.  Are you saying that they (we) are wasting our time?

Also, have you considered the amount of scientists who are skeptical of global warming?  This is a fallacy, because the numbers shouldn't matter, it's the strength of the arguments and ideas.  However, I can understand that if you hold the opinion that only a technocratic elite can hold opinions on science, then you would have to play a game based off of the force of numbers and not ideas.  That said, I'll play within this framework and offer a couple of bits of information...

1.  Here is a list of scientists who are skeptics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

2.  Here is an article about a petition of 31,000 scientists who are skeptical of global warming.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3214

If we are simply going to play a numbers game, the obvious reply is going to be, "How many of these are climate scientists?"  I'll get to that below.

What I'm talking about here, goes deeper then that.  It goes back to the "either/or" choice you offered the readers above, which is a fallacy.  The premise you offer is indefensible, there are more choices then the two being presented.



Empty Hands said:


> Science is a self-correcting process, and always wins in the end.  Political constructions of science, from Lysenkoism to "German Physics", have always failed because the data does not support them.  The irrational predilections of even famous scientists (like Einstein) have always failed because the data do not support them.  Science is larger than human failings.



While I agree that this is the ideal, it assumes that the velocity of information isn't restricted.  When you have a "marketplace" of ideas that are competing that incorporates diverse personalities and interests and these people/organizations are "allowed" to share their information you can achieve this ideal.  If this process is tampered with, science is unable to glimpse reality.

The Climategate documents are a record of this.  They document the manipulation, fabrication and dissemination of flawed data.  They document a corruption of the peer review process.  They document the harassment of skeptics from the pulling of their funding by various bureaucratic agencies to the denial of tenure to researchers.  They document a destruction of original evidence.  They document efforts to frustrate efforts to independently investigate (aka...show repeatability).  The whole idea that you can trust a group of scientists with lots of political pull is blown apart by these documents.  If it can happen here, it can happen anywhere and you better be damn careful before you engage in the "truth by numbers" scientific opinion generation method.



Empty Hands said:


> There is no scientific debate here.  The scientific debate is largely settled, at least over the basic question.  What we have here is a political debate that is twisting science to its own ends.  Perhaps given your mindset you can appreciate that the "controversy" is largely being manufactured by those seeking to protect their economic interests, mainly corporations involved in traditional energy and heavily polluting industries.



So now I'm not believing in the right conspiracies?  LOL!  All joking aside...

It's settled or unsettled depending on how you look at it and we still haven't discussed the hidden criteria that allows you to make this determination.  You chose to believe this and you chose to kick various peices of data to the curb.

Also, I would like you to consider that in the late 90s, what you said about multinational corporations and global warming may have been true.  Now, that is not the case.  Fossil fuel giants and major polluters support carbon taxes and cap and trade.  

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=98&contentId=7033749

The reasoning behind this has nothing to do with the science and everything to do with finance.  There are trillions of dollars to be made in CDOs in regards to carbon taxes and carbon credits.  

Can you honestly have a marketplace of ideas with that kind of money sloshing through it?



Empty Hands said:


> You just have to stay on top of them and be vigilant.  Same as anything else.  I'm really only familiar with the NIH, but they are remarkably non-political.



The NIH has a revolving door industry execs like every other federal agency.  Google it.  

It's political and the multinationals control the politics.

In my opinion, we've entered a New Age of Science.  Science is becoming a tool for propaganda and the days of free inquiry are ending.  Unless we can teach a generation of students about the history and nature of science soon, we'll get to the point where the technocratic elite will merge with the autocrats and oligarchs.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 13, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> But second, the validity of argument is based not just on scientific veracity but also upon logical constructs.  I do NOT have to be an expert in climate science to spot flaws in arguments.  And there are many.



Somewhat true, but limited.  Many aspects of science, such as quantum mechanics, are not in the least bit "logical" from the perspective of the scientist.  Logic is a set of rules, and like any set of rules, it depends greatly on its foundational postulates, which may not always be correct.  To go back to quantum mechanics again, fundamental particles violate even the most basic rules of logic, like x=x.  At the end of the day, data rules.  If you have the data, you are to be believed.  If you do not, then no matter how logical or compelling your argument, you are not to be believed.

Not that even every scientist agrees with my strict empiricism.  Einstein for instance didn't even like experimentation, and felt that the laws of the universe could be reasoned out.  With relativity, that approach served him well.  With quantum mechanics, it led him astray.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I do have a lot of heartburn over how those contents are often portrayed.



Which is, of course, a red herring argument as to the veracity of the basic question.  It doesn't matter how anyone portrays the data, because the deniers insist on dismissing the data as well as the bad arguments that go too far.  The data must be addressed if warming is to be dismissed.



Bill Mattocks said:


> You said, I believe, that climate change is settled science.  It may be.  But public opinion over it is far from settled.  In fact, the tide (no pun intended) is clearly running against it at the moment.  The report can say what it says, and news organizations can twist it into saying whatever hand-wringing OMG! thing they want it to say, but the public has largely had enough of it.



That is yet another red herring argument, even if it is true.  It doesn't matter if every single person in the world were against global warming.  The data is what matters.  To insist otherwise is the _argumentum ad populum _logical fallacy.

Of course, the reason the public's opinion is turning is mainly due to  bought and paid for propaganda.  It's not difficult to find out who is funding the professional "skeptics".


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 13, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> This is a sad thought actually.  Imagine all of the science teachers who are believe that they are preparing their students for citizenship by giving them a liberal education in science.  Are you saying that they (we) are wasting our time?



Let's take a step back.  My exchange here started to address scientists in other fields (Hal Lewis) dismissing an entire field and calling it a "scam" when they have no background in the field.  That has been the context of my discussion.  In order to make such a judgment, you cannot be a well read layperson.  You must have a solid grasp of the data.  That is a different claim from saying that no one can ever be educated in science, or that science teachers are wasting their time.  I have not said that.  Being as educated as possible in science is a good thing for laypeople.  That basic education however in no way empowers them to challenge the findings of scientists in the field.

I do remember my science education.  It was entirely didactic.  We learned a long list of factoids and body part names and enzymatic cascades.  There was no true understanding of how the parts fit together or a good attempt to harmonize.  Perhaps with good reason, because at the time, *we had no ability to gain a true understanding.*  After all these years of study, my understanding is still incomplete, and I know it.  I know I wasn't alone at that age either, because I've tried to explain what I do or tutor others in biology, and they gain no true understanding.  They grasp a tiny little piece.  They basically accept what I tell them on faith, and I know it.

I've tried to impart the vastness of what we do here, and I don't know if it's getting through.  It is a truly monumental mountain range of knowledge, and even the well educated mostly dabble in the foothills.  Even we specialists only master one peak.  Would you feel a yellow belt in karate could tell the grandmaster what the proper application of bunkai are?  Imagine someone without that training and knowledge coming up to me and claiming my work, the work I've spent years on using my own two hands, is completely false.  Would you accept the same in my place?  Why should the climate scientists?

Why should we accept the words of amateurs over the words of those who have made it their life's work?  It makes absolutely no sense, and we wouldn't do it in other walks of life, until the findings make us uncomfortable and challenge our political views.



maunakumu said:


> The premise you offer is indefensible, there are more choices then the two being presented.



I could feed you 6 contradictory lines of ******** about my field, and you would probably never know.  I could do the same to almost anyone.  Anyone with specialized knowledge in almost any walk of life could.  Until that is no longer true, the premise is not indefensible.  How can you claim to pass judgment on my knowledge and work when you can't even tell when I'm making stuff up about it?

Yes, by all means, be as educated as you can.  I certainly am, I love learning about many fields.  I know however at the end of the day that I have no ability to decide that karate is ********, or string theory is ********, or global warming is ********, or anything else I have an incomplete understanding of.

There are no shortcuts in life.  If you want the knowledge, you have to work for it.  *Everything  *has to be worked for.  You can't cut to the end of the path and call yourself done.

This is not to say however that the words of the expert alone are enough to make something true.  Data and empiricism are what truly matters.  The stark truth though is that the layperson has no ability to judge the data appropriately.  That will mostly be the work of other experts.



maunakumu said:


> The Climategate documents are a record of this.  They document the manipulation, fabrication and dissemination of flawed data.



By two scientists.  Who were cleared of wrongdoing, also.  I can name more than two scientists in biology that have fabricated data and engaged in fraud, and lost their careers because of it.  Yet somehow, we don't hear how biomedical science is all a giant scam.  That's because people like their new drugs, but they don't like the thought of having to change their lives to alter global warming.  I'm not terribly impressed.



maunakumu said:


> You chose to believe this and you chose to kick various peices of data to the curb.



Actually, I have made no evaluation of the data.  I have no ability to do so authoritatively, and I know it.  I've seen some, but not comprehensively.  I certainly haven't kicked anything to the curb.  I base my conclusion on the vast majority of the field, who have made their expert opinions known.  They claim the evidence is overwhelming, and I have seen nothing to call that conclusion into question.  Certainly not the opinions of a bunch of engineers and other scientific types who don't even have a mastery of the data.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Somewhat true, but limited.  Many aspects of science, such as quantum mechanics, are not in the least bit "logical" from the perspective of the scientist.  Logic is a set of rules, and like any set of rules, it depends greatly on its foundational postulates, which may not always be correct.  To go back to quantum mechanics again, fundamental particles violate even the most basic rules of logic, like x=x.  At the end of the day, data rules.  If you have the data, you are to be believed.  If you do not, then no matter how logical or compelling your argument, you are not to be believed.



I am not challenging the data by logical argument, but rather the presentation of the conclusions.  The IPPC Final Report was very carefully worded.  Reporting by media, celebrities, and even (IMHO biased) scientists was not.  Careful statements of probability were glossed over, ignored, or simply lied about in order to create a more compelling case for immediate action.  These logical flaws are in the arguments presented as fact, not in the raw data or the conclusions of the IPPC.



> Not that even every scientist agrees with my strict empiricism.  Einstein for instance didn't even like experimentation, and felt that the laws of the universe could be reasoned out.  With relativity, that approach served him well.  With quantum mechanics, it led him astray.



I am not trying to imply that I can deduce new facts from logical argument with regard to climate science.



> Which is, of course, a red herring argument as to the veracity of the basic question.  It doesn't matter how anyone portrays the data, because the deniers insist on dismissing the data as well as the bad arguments that go too far.  The data must be addressed if warming is to be dismissed.



I do not dismiss warming.  Rather, I adhere to the conclusions of the IPPC Final Report and believe that there is doubt whether or not GW is actually anthropogenic, and that there is doubt whether or not the agency of man can reverse the warming trend.  I don't dismiss it, I embrace the uncertainty expressed by the IPPC report.



> That is yet another red herring argument, even if it is true.  It doesn't matter if every single person in the world were against global warming.  The data is what matters.  To insist otherwise is the _argumentum ad populum _logical fallacy.



No amount of opinion can change a fact.  But it can change funding, and it was that which I was speaking of.  If nobody believes it, it's not going to get any more money, and that's that.  



> Of course, the reason the public's opinion is turning is mainly due to  bought and paid for propaganda.  It's not difficult to find out who is funding the professional "skeptics".



I think a lot of public opinion was formed long before the current 'Climategate', back when the pissing and moaning over the Kyoto Protocols was going on.  A lot of people don't like being condescended to, and I think scientists, politicians, celebrities, and generic tree huggers ignored that and now they're paying a price for it.

I'm just saying that science aside, it still requires a lot of explanation and persuasion to get it done, since it involves a lot of tax money and a lot of sacrifice by all.  I probably would have eschewed the 'sky is falling' crapola as well as the 'you idiots just don't get it' nonsense that we were subjected to.  Scientists often are not terribly good at communicating.  This time they stepped on their cranks and this is what happens.


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 13, 2010)

geezer said:


> You obviously have never been married.


 
Actually, coming up on 28 years later this year.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 13, 2010)

On one hand, I see political arguements started by a man who has no scientific background and now recants those arguements (a former Bush staffer).  On the other hand there is a possibly biased arguement made by a majority of experts in the field.  Given the possible consequences and which arguement has the experts' support, I know which direction I'll act in.  Yeah, I'll try to conserve.  Seems only smart, even if the experts' arguement turns out to be mistaken.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> On one hand, I see political arguements started by a man who has no scientific background and now recants those arguements (a former Bush staffer).  On the other hand there is a possibly biased arguement made by a majority of experts in the field.  Given the possible consequences and which arguement has the experts' support, I know which direction I'll act in.  Yeah, I'll try to conserve.  Seems only smart, even if the experts' arguement turns out to be mistaken.



What if the reports that say what the experts conclude are incorrect instead?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

The experts talk about likelihood of what will happen, not what will happen.  They talk about the likelihood of human causation, not proof that global warming was anthropogenic.  Somehow that's not how it's been getting reported.


----------



## Ramirez (Oct 16, 2010)

Bob Park's post on it

http://www.bobpark.org/



> . INCONTROVERTIBLE: APS FELLOW HAL LEWIS RESIGNS MEMBERSHIP.
> 
> Hal Lewis, a Fellow of the APS, has resigned his APS membership of 67 years. News stories described his resignation as a protest of the official APS position on global-warming; but that's not quite what his resignation letter says. He begins by recounting how things were before the serpent persuaded physicists to taste the fruit of the money tree. An oversight committee of "towering physicists beyond reproach" assured the independence of the study panel. The second paragraph is Hals actual resignation: "How different it is now," he writes. "The giants no longer walk the earth. The money flood has become the raison detre of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame and I am forced with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society." Hal couldnt resist pissing on the APS Global Warming Statement, which he thinks is a scam. The APS statement uses the word "incontrovertible" to describe the evidence for or against global warming. Incontrovertible should be unacceptable to physicists. What sets physics apart from other ways of knowing is openness to revision if better information becomes available. Openness to new knowledge is the most important concept science can offer the world.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 20, 2010)

EH,

Although I can agree with you about the fact that the data is what it is, isn't it essentially meaningless unless it is interpreted, is it not.  That then can lead to the experts, for whatever reason, giving a personally biased interpretation of the facts.


In my admittedly infantile understanding of climate science, I have no chance of refuting any climatologist interpretation of the data.  However, some of what I have seen leads me to skepticism regarding those who advance a belief in anthropogenic global warming.  

The Climate-gate e-mails.  Sorry, but I am not convinced when their supporters "show" that the effects of those efforts were meaningless.

The issue that some of the belief in global warming is based off of historical trends, when even they admit that the data for such is inconclusive.

And what I also decry is the suppression, whether it be in academia or the media, of scientists who speak out against anthropogenic global warming.  What about people like Richard Lindzen (atmospheric physicist), William Grey (professor of Atmospheric science), Tad Murty (Phd in oceanography and meteorology), Tim Patterson (paleoclimatoglogist), Fred Singer (atmospheric physicist).

I admit, I tend to be a skeptic of anything that doesn't fit into my world view.  I think everyone is.  So, being a person who has merely a passing interest in climate change (as I have no ability to set any type of policy on the issue), when I see things such as the above, and then the ad hominem attacks that are associated with scientists who disagree, I have a hard time believing it.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 22, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> The release of these documents hopefully put the globalist Carbon Tax and Cap and Trade scams six feet under.


 
Its not a scam. Its a _capitalist_ solution to the problem, and a common one, actually. More to the point, the popular meme that it will raise utility rates-costing all of us money and sending us into a television less, artificial lightless, microwave ovenless dark age is something of a canard. Utility rate cases are decided in most jurisdictions by a public service commission or other body. A rate case is the basis for a utilities passing on capital costs to rate payers. In most cases (not all) where utilities have tried to make the costs of mandated pollution controls part of their rate case, such costs have been disallowed. Prominent (and relevant) examples can be found in the controls for fly ash and sulphur dioxide. In the case of baghouses-the most common form of flyash control- these retrofits are usually disallowed to such an extent that its become rather standard for utilities to actually shut down one or two units on a site in order to be able to afford eating the costs of the retrofit. This is what occurred at several of Xcel Energys sites in the metro Denver area: they retired two units and retrofitted the remainder. Its precisely what is planned to occur at the Four Corners Generation Station outside Farmington, NM: theyll likely shut down three units, and retrofit the remaining two. 

The case of sulphur dioxide (SO2) is even more relevant. Everyone remembers the screaming in the 70s and 80s about acid rain. This phenomena is principally caused by SO2 released from coal burning plants, though some is caused by nitrogen as well. In any case, in order to combat this, a cap and trade system was put in place-_this was meant to encourage utilities to install emission control equipment._ Basically, it allows utilities to trade credit for *removal* of SO2, either within their system or from utility to utility. In many plants, removal is far in excess of what is required by law, and they can trade credit with utilities where this equipment is under repair, or hasnt been installed yet. What has happened because of this is an installation of equipment at plants across the country at lower than anticipated costs to utilities and consumers, as well as an overall reduction in SO2 emissions and achieving the target goals of the laws that set up the cap and trade system and required the equipment-an achievement that took place a full three years before the deadline. The same might prove to be true for CO2-if anyone ever figures out how to handle the stuff in a way that can be retrofitted to existing plants. Make no mistake, CO2 is a real atmospheric problem, whatever your beliefs, opinions, considered opinions, or whatever you know or think you know about global warming-rhetoric about trees and exhalations notwithstanding. CO2 in our atmosphere is currently running about 390 ppm-higher than its been in at least _800,000_ years, and possibly much longer. Most of our atmospheric oxygen came from phytoplankton near the surface of the earths seas, and phytoplankton, like their more familiar earthbound counterparts-_trees_ utilize atmospheric CO2 to do so. However, theres been a 40% reduction in worldwide phytoplankton since 1950 due to-you guessed it: *warmer* oceans. Higher temperatures make photosynthesis more difficult.

In any case, figure out a way to keep CO2 from burning coal being released to the atmosphere, and youll be rich beyond all possible dreams of avairice.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 22, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Sometimes it's a tyranny, sometimes it's a decades long training process in order to become truly knowledgeable in the field. I've spent 11 years training in my field now, 15 if you count my undergraduate degree, and despite my PhD, I'm still considered a "trainee". I've authored 10 papers now, with a few more on the way, and still a "trainee". Do you know what variables to take into account when performing a non-linear regression of a drug response plot? Do you know how MAPK proteins interface with TNFalpha receptors to induce inflammation and cell stress? If I told you that RANTES is the natural ligand of the kappa opioid receptor, could you tell me if I was right or wrong?
> 
> Truly knowing a field is the work of a lifetime. I have no ability to tell Hal Lewis (or Elder999 for that matter) the first thing about physics, and they have no ability to tell me my cell signaling work is incorrect. That is why we have peer review, because the peers are the only ones with the knowledge to even begin to evaluate the work. Can I make pronouncements about the field of climate science or knowledgeably dismiss the entire field? Not a chance, and neither can Hal Lewis, or anyone else here. Much less the legions of committed ideologues that have decided what the truth is about an entire scientific discipline based on their political views without the slightest backing or evidence.


 
While there's some truth to many of your statements about scientific fields, the fact remains that it's not at all unusual for some (many?) of us to be somewhat polymathic-it's almost impossible to be a staff physicist at LANSCE without some ( a LOT) of electronics and some (a LOT) of programming ability-some of that in somewhat esoteric and obsolete systems and languages to boot. I'd also take issue with your statement about "no such thing as well read." While many scientists are comfortably monomaniacal, and live, breathe and eat their work , many more (I think) have hobbies and areas of expertise beyond their field-I cannot tell you how many physicists, like Chick Keller are also expert archaelogists, or mountain climbers- he's both, though he doesn't climb much-as well as excellent musicians. The fellow who runs the weapons division at the lab is a collector of Ferraris (I think Los ALamos is the smallest city in the country to have a "Ferrari Club..) and does all his own mechanical work on all three Ferraris......as well as his bicycle, and he makes telescopes....

......but, yeah, "biology?" Mostly Greek to me....no, wait, I can handle Greek, make that Klingon. :lol:

IN any case, in all the noise, many of us are missing the larger point, which is, well....LOOK AT MY SIGNATURE. :lol:

Seriously. This whole argument is just part of the process-and seeing the process as it takes place. Again, I have to remind everyone that science doesn't necessarily provide "answers." It provides _models_, and these models change.....

Aristarchus of Samos was the first to propose a heliocentric solar system in 390 BC.

Copernicus cited Aristarchus when he proposed his heliocentic _model_, in 1544-_a full 38 years after he conceived it._ WHy the delay? Well, he'd circulated a manuscript earlier for _peer review_, and, while it was well received in some circles, the interest of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as a direct condemnation by Martin Luther, discouraged him. He started his work in 1506, probably finished it around 1530, and didn't publish until he was about dead-in fact, he died in 1544.....then came Galileo, who-well, we know what sort of trouble he got into, even though he rejected Kepler somewhat, he still upset the apple cart by removing Earth from the center of the universe, and giving us a model of our solar system that we all know to be fact-I won't even bore you with the _centuries _of "discussion" it took to arrive there.


I think someone already mentioned Einstein's famous resistance to quantum theory-_"God does not play dice with the universe,"_ except, of course, when he does, apparently. A case of a scientist changing-relucatantly-his mind.

Thn of course, there's the whole fuss over the discovery of HIV/AIDS, as seen here, back in 2008:



> The issue of who discovered HIV became a bitter dispute in the mid-1980s when it became clear there would be huge revenues from diagnostic tests derived from the discovery. Another scientist, Professor Robert Gallo at the University of the Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, also claimed rights to the discovery.
> There was an acrimonious dispute over patent ownership which culminated in an out of court settlement and a joint statement by then US president Ronald Reagan and French president Jacques Chirac in which both sides agreed to split the proceeds evenly.
> Professor John Oxford, a virologist at Queen Mary, University of London, said he felt Gallo deserved equal credit and to award the prize to all three would have drawn a line under the controversy.
> "It doesn't land pleasantly on my tongue. It doesn't taste right," he said. "My first reaction is 'poor old Gallo' ... I feel sorry they haven't linked all three of them." Oxford said he felt that zur Hausen's work, though important, was in a different league. "It's not such a big discovery."


 
Scientists: boring, staid, stodgy, dignified, and bound by *facts*. 
Unless, of course, they're being downright territorial-in which case we're a bunch of evil old queens.....:lol:



The arguments about _global warming, global climate change, *or the lack thereof*_ are all pretty much the same thing: mired in politics of interior and exterior nature, causing all sorts of fear about what they *mean*: economically, theologically, spiritually. No, really: theologically-what does "have dominion over the earth" mean on a planet where we can cause it to change so radically?Etc., etc., etc. In the end, we'll have a model, though it may be too late to do us any good-in the end, we'll have *facts*, probably in forms we won't care for.


----------

