science and politics

chopitdown

We often read about how science takes an approach that is free from bias and how it is held up as the highest standard since they are really after truth. I don't want to turn this into a global warming debate, rather, a discussion the politics of the global warming science... Here's a couple of articles that address some of the issues in the science and conclusions of global warming.
US senate committee
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37cd65f0-802a-23ad-4a69-5a1509a4a551
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c
New Zealand
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1

*usual qualifier...we should be smart with resources...

as you look at the senate committee website you have the majority party saying that warming is real and you have the minority saying it's a fraud. Do you think the politics of global warming are becoming more important than the science of global warming? Do you think the politics are driving the science or the science is driving the politics?

polaris

Inhofe and Morano (who writes his press blog) are known climate skeptics ...

in any case - to answer your question: i think politics has done a good job of funkying up the science in order to serve specific agendas ...

chopitdown

polaris wrote:

Inhofe and Morano (who writes his press blog) are known climate skeptics ...

in any case - to answer your question: i think politics has done a good job of funkying up the science in order to serve specific agendas ...

i agree and i think it's that way in a lot of scientific areas. Politicians decide funding amounts to different groups now usually they have scientists at least score different granting ideas, but if the ideas don't jive with the politics at the time it seems those may not get the attention to prove whether the hypothesis is right or wrong.

polaris

chopitdown wrote:

i agree and i think it's that way in a lot of scientific areas. Politicians decide funding amounts to different groups now usually they have scientists at least score different granting ideas, but if the ideas don't jive with the politics at the time it seems those may not get the attention to prove whether the hypothesis is right or wrong.

most definitely ... nothing has been more politicized then climate change ... simply because there is so much at stake ... it is pretty evident these days that gov'ts govern on behalf of corporate interests moreso then public all in the name of the mghty economy ...

well - those big boys don't want to hear anything that might affec their gravy train ... so, this is what you get ...

Cosmo

The only thing I can think of that is worst than politics deciding on science... is religion deciding on science.

chopitdown

Cosmo wrote:

The only thing I can think of that is worst than politics deciding on science... is religion deciding on science.

i'm glad you said deciding on science, rather than questioning science using the scientific method. I agree that religion shouldn't decide on science, but those who are religious are involved in scieince in every avenue (healthcare, engineering, biology, botany, etc...). I'd hope you're not against people who may not agree with the majority but do use the scientific method to evaluate their hypothesis, if it's possible.

Cosmo

chopitdown wrote:

i'm glad you said deciding on science, rather than questioning science using the scientific method. I agree that religion shouldn't decide on science, but those who are religious are involved in scieince in every avenue (healthcare, engineering, biology, botany, etc...). I'd hope you're not against people who may not agree with the majority but do use the scientific method to evaluate their hypothesis, if it's possible.

...
No. We can all question science... And I have no problem with someone beliving in Creationism entering any field. As long as they respect the scientific data gathering.
I belive those whom choose a career path of Biology Teacher needs to set aside their belief system and teach to the ciriculum when it comes to teaching Evolution to the students.
...
But, as far as deciding what the science has uncovered.. the ones I reallly don't want deciding for us are politics or religions.

searchlightsoul

polaris wrote:

Inhofe and Morano (who writes his press blog) are known climate skeptics ...

in any case - to answer your question: i think politics has done a good job of funkying up the science in order to serve specific agendas ...

Good scientists are ALWAYS skeptics. And despite what you may understand about science there is no point where a theory is beyond questioning. Accepted scientific theories are simply those which have yet to be disproved.

Scubascott

chopitdown wrote:

Do you think the politics of global warming are becoming more important than the science of global warming? Do you think the politics are driving the science or the science is driving the politics?

I think those lines got blurred a very long time ago and it has made it virtually impossible to get to the bottom of the problem.