• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientific American Completes the transition from science to politics

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
49,494
Reaction score
15,381
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I just received an email for Scientific American saying.
SA Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment
Forget Trump for a second as he is almost irrelevant to this discussion.
The concept of following evidence based science and supporting the current statement of the climate is crises,
are the anthesis of science.
My subscription goes back to the 1970's, but I think this will be may last year, as they have drifted away from actual science and only
give a platformer to the politically correct.
 
In the 70s Scientific American was the premier science magazine for the masses. It motivated me to get into science/engineering. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
 
In the 70s Scientific American was the premier science magazine for the masses. It motivated me to get into science/engineering. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
I agree, it was the reason I studies lasers in college.
 
I just received an email for Scientific American saying.
SA Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment
Forget Trump for a second as he is almost irrelevant to this discussion.
The concept of following evidence based science and supporting the current statement of the climate is crises,
are the anthesis of science.
My subscription goes back to the 1970's, but I think this will be may last year, as they have drifted away from actual science and only
give a platformer to the politically correct.
They are supporting the candidate that doesn't throw science out the window.

Shocking, I know, but there you have it.

Your cancellation will probably affect them just as much as the cancellation of creationists affected them in the 1990s.
 
They are supporting the candidate that doesn't throw science out the window.

Shocking, I know, but there you have it.

Your cancellation will probably affect them just as much as the cancellation of creationists affected them in the 1990s.
I know it will not change them, they just will not continue to receive money from me.
But also supporting Harris as the science candidate, is simply a bridge too far.
The current climate of politics in science could break the trust people have in the scientific method.
 
I know it will not change them, they just will not continue to receive money from me.
But also supporting Harris as the science candidate, is simply a bridge too far.
Fair enough. You do you.
The current climate of politics in science could break the trust people have in the scientific method.
The entire MAGA movement, alongside the granola-crunchers, has been doing that for years.
 
I just received an email for Scientific American saying.
SA Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment
Forget Trump for a second as he is almost irrelevant to this discussion.
The concept of following evidence based science and supporting the current statement of the climate is crises,
are the anthesis of science.
My subscription goes back to the 1970's, but I think this will be may last year, as they have drifted away from actual science and only
give a platformer to the politically correct.
Yes, Trump has caused many former reasonable people, science minded folks to turn full blown dumb ass.

I suggest you keep your subscription.
 
Well, the choice is someone who believes in science vs a guy who wants to deregulate everything and turn the US into a cesspool.

Easy decision.
 
I know it will not change them, they just will not continue to receive money from me.
But also supporting Harris as the science candidate, is simply a bridge too far.
The current climate of politics in science could break the trust people have in the scientific method.
Clue, MAGA holds no trust in science. Trump long ago destroyed that notion.

Trump put science on the line with his cult accepting his stupidity.
 
I agree, it was the reason I studies lasers in college.
Little would be know that lasers would be everywhere and they would only cost a few dollars each. Oh how the world has changed!
 
I know it will not change them, they just will not continue to receive money from me.
But also supporting Harris as the science candidate, is simply a bridge too far.
The current climate of politics in science could break the trust people have in the scientific method.

Trump was president for four years and went as far as appointed a coal lobbyist as head of EPA.


Still couldn't his administration and Republicans in Congress find any faults with federal agencies decades long climate research. So this study was published during Trump's presidency.

"The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts. Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities. Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."


That the reality is that Republican politicians have also known about the need for action on climate change for a long time, but choose to care more about the money they get from fossil fuel companies.

"Leonard, nonetheless, manages to dig up valuable new material, including evidence of the Kochs’ role in perhaps the earliest known organized conference of climate-change deniers, which gathered just as the scientific consensus on the issue was beginning to gel. The meeting, in 1991, was sponsored by the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank, which the Kochs founded and heavily funded for years. As Leonard describes it, Charles Koch and other fossil-fuel magnates sprang into action that year, after President George H. W. Bush announced that he would support a treaty limiting carbon emissions, a move that posed a potentially devastating threat to the profits of Koch Industries. At the time, Bush was not an outlier in the Republican Party. Like the Democrats, the Republicans largely accepted the scientific consensus on climate change, reflected in the findings of expert groups such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which had formed in 1988, under the auspices of the United Nations."


 
I just received an email for Scientific American saying.
SA Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment
Forget Trump for a second as he is almost irrelevant to this discussion.
The concept of following evidence based science and supporting the current statement of the climate is crises,
are the anthesis of science.
My subscription goes back to the 1970's, but I think this will be may last year, as they have drifted away from actual science and only
give a platformer to the politically correct.
This is probably going to come as a huge shock to you, but did you know that people in science have lives outside their profession and interests outside that profession? And did you know that what politicians do can impact the ability of scientists to do what they do?
 
Yes, Trump has caused many former reasonable people, science minded folks to turn full blown dumb ass.

I suggest you keep your subscription.
Science follows the data not the politics!
 
Clue, MAGA holds no trust in science. Trump long ago destroyed that notion.

Trump put science on the line with his cult accepting his stupidity.
Trump is nothing special, but his political ideas are in my opinion better than Harris’s path.
Science is apolitical and follows the data.
The AGW advocates of the world are the ones not looking at the empirical evidence.
 
Little would be know that lasers would be everywhere and they would only cost a few dollars each. Oh how the world has changed!
As early as 1983 I was designing transmitters with laser diodes, but they were crazy unstable, and could burn themselves out without much cause.
 
This is probably going to come as a huge shock to you, but did you know that people in science have lives outside their profession and interests outside that profession? And did you know that what politicians do can impact the ability of scientists to do what they do?
This may come as a shock to you, but Scientists are still expected to follow the data even when it disagrees with the politics!
 
Politics drives funding. (D) will fund 'science' especially green initiatives. (R) will fund military research and development, i.e DARPA, star wars, etc. My first real job in 1983 was funded through Regan's star wars initiative. It was a great time for me. From poor college student to think tank engineer with essentially unlimited budget.
 
And nothing in the OP source suggests otherwise. Do try and fail less.
Harris is on record fully embracing the Green New Deal, large portions of which
are not based on observed data, but rather simulation outputs.
This is not how science works.
 
Harris is on record fully embracing the Green New Deal, large portions of which
are not based on observed data, but rather simulation outputs.
This is not how science works.
You are grasping at straws, rather laughably.
 
You are grasping at straws, rather laughably.
Nope, Science is how we describe what we observe with logic.
While it is plausible that added greenhouse gases could cause warming, the observed data since 2002,
when we could first see the data, is showing that the longwave energy imbalance is decreasing not increasing.
We still have a positive energy imbalance, but it is a result of more of the available sunlight reaching the surface,
and less of that sunlight being reflected. Still very likely Human activity, just not greenhouse gases.
 
Nope, Science is how we describe what we observe with logic.
While it is plausible that added greenhouse gases could cause warming, the observed data since 2002,
when we could first see the data, is showing that the longwave energy imbalance is decreasing not increasing.
We still have a positive energy imbalance, but it is a result of more of the available sunlight reaching the surface,
and less of that sunlight being reflected. Still very likely Human activity, just not greenhouse gases.
I have not disputed what science is. Reading is fundamental.

Speaking of reading is fundamental, nowhere in the op/ed linked in the OP is the green new deal mentioned, so your claims about it are both irrelevant and a red herring. Climate change is mentioned, with one candidate acknowledging it exists, and one denying. Want to guess which is which?
 
I know it will not change them, they just will not continue to receive money from me.
But also supporting Harris as the science candidate, is simply a bridge too far.
The current climate of politics in science could break the trust people have in the scientific method.
A couple days ago someone posted a supercut video of trump's less intelligent speeches, among them was one where trump tells his audience that we will have "clean coal",
he actually said they would wash the coal, so we would have clean coal. Perhaps if Scientific American had included a story on trump's new clean coal you might keep your subscription.
 
Back
Top Bottom