Nebraska Scientists Refuse To Carry Out Climate Change-Denying Study 640
Lasrick writes "Nebraska researchers say they refuse to be used as political pawns: 'The problem, according to members of the governor-appointed Climate Assessment and Response Committee, is that the bill behind the study specifically calls for the researchers to look at 'cyclical' climate change. In so doing, it completely leaves out human contributions to global warming.'"
Only in America (Score:5, Interesting)
Name one other country with a political party who is so hellbent on reality distortion to do such silly things with tax payer money? Name one other country who will purposedly ally themselves with corporate interests agaisn't the will of the people to do such silly things like publish these studies?
America is turning into the laughing stock of the world. It is truly embarrasing. Conservative Americans might be mad at my post or the suggestions we should all start voting for democrats, but at least they are somewhat sane and do not deny reality.
denier scientists (Score:4, Interesting)
Surely some of the AGW denying researchers like Roy Spencer will take up the invitation. Funny thing about Spencer and his ilk, though. They're quick to take Koch money to attack AGW, but seem reticent to do actual research to back up their frequent public skepticism.
Re:Governor Appointed (Score:5, Interesting)
How do we keep politics out of this?
By eliminating all taxpayer funding of 'science'.
As Eisenhowr said, in the paragraphs everyone ignores just after he warned of the growing Military-Industrial Complex:
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
So long as politicians fund science with taxpayers' money, it will be politicized.
The study is about the effects of climate change (Score:5, Interesting)
No one has RTFA it seems ... (I know, I know, /.)
The scientists are being asked to study the effects of climate change on Nebraska, not climate change itself.
in that context restricting them to studying the effects of cyclical changes only is stupid, and the reason for their protest.
See also the longer article here http://www.omaha.com/article/20131024/NEWS/131029338/1707#state-climate-change-study-may-go-begging-for-scientists [omaha.com]
Re:Here is a hint: (Score:2, Interesting)
The "president" of the IPCC is the guy that owns the worlds biggest trading company of "carbon credits".
This claim would be more interesting with a citation. The chair of IPCC is Rajendra K. Pachauri (since 2002). What is the name of the carbon credit trading company he owns?
Re:You think that government is apolitical? (Score:5, Interesting)
That stopped being true thirty years ago.
If by "powerful" you mean the ability to influence society, it's not even close. If you mean, "the ability to put armies in the field", corporations are catching up fast. If you mean, "the ability to exert their will on individuals, corporations are way ahead of governments.
With the rise of corporate sovereignty, corporations are now saying, "We don't need governments, so we plan to ignore them".
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Then let the science speak for itself. I mean seriously, if it is already being done then it will independently verify the know results and strengthen the argument fot AGW. If the science shows something different, then the models can be improved but at least it will be science driving it regardless of the motivation for the science. Iff the science doesn't happen because of politics, we will know it is politics.
I simply do not understand how a group can claim something is scietifically true and refuse to do svcience because the results might favor people who do not trust the svientific accuracy of that truth. Its like saying this lock id unpickable and never letting anyone try to pick it.
Re:You think that government is apolitical? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you consider that he said "big corporations and big government are a difference without a distinction", then the problems we have with corporate money in politics makes more sense.
Re:Governor Appointed (Score:2, Interesting)
So you're saying nobody anywhere ever, other than the government, would fund climate research? That just makes no sense at all.
Not only that, but there are glaring counterexamples. Koch money, for instance, funded BEST.
All sorts of comments possible on that one, but I'll leave them for another day.
Re:Governor Appointed (Score:2, Interesting)
52% of Republicans believe in creationism in a recent Gallup poll, as opposed to 34% of Democrats (still shocking). Having a majority membership of a major political party has given religious ideologues political influence they haven't enjoyed since the 1920s.
Any numbers about "creationism" are meaningless because nobody agrees what "creationism" is. 2/3rds of the world's population believe in a creator, so what? Are they all "creationists"?
Your atheistic troll is offtopic and offensive. However, I do forgive you for it.
Re:Governor Appointed (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, I used "creationism" as shorthand for the result. 52% of Republicans believe that the world was created by God some time in the last 10,000 years. 34% of *Democrats* took that position in the Gallup survey. It is possible that not all of the people who believed that call themselves "creationists"; but generally people reject "-ist" labels put on them by others.
Re:You think that government is apolitical? (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay, so two thought experiments:
1) big corporations don't exist - politicians exert control over small businesses, extorting money out of them for election funding, and giving favorable treatment to those who pay up, and penalties to those who don't
2) overwhelming government power doesn't exist - big corporations don't throw money at politicians, since they can make better investments that have better returns.
I'm afraid the root cause of the problems of corruption in government are *directly* related to the outsized power big government has - if government was limited, and could not tip the economic scales of the market in one direction or another to benefit their cronies, there would be no incentive for big business to take part in the election process.
Re:Governor Appointed (Score:5, Interesting)
So you're saying nobody anywhere ever, other than the government, would fund climate research? That just makes no sense at all.
The university system is the USA's last beacon of exceptionalism, and is systematically being eroded by turning professors into professional grant writers. Momentum is mostly what is really keeping it going. The public funding of research also supports education of the entire population. Only a radical would propose undoing such a successful system based on some intellectual theory on how societies and economies work. A theory that most academics disagree with. See Hayek's Fatal Conceit [wikipedia.org].