Texans beware

[bobmoore]

Too bad you guys can't back up and see what the Cafe was at the beginning. Yes, I am an original from the 90's when this was Tom's Cafe who doesn't care much for delusional nonsense, and there is a lot of that here now. People are free to believe whatever they want to, but believing patent damn foolishness is idiocy. I never have and never will tiptoe around people who think there are dozens of genders. Again. I do not care what other people do, but affirming ignorance and outright stupidity is not going to happen. There are others here who agree, but are reticent to say so.

[Elisabetta]

I believe if people quit commenting here and continuing on what's trying to be put to rest everyone can go on with another thread .

[Uncle Al]

Hi bobmoore

I remember you from Tom's Cafe' and seeing your name
brought a smile to my face

It's great to read you again

Uncle Al

[ScotL]

Many, many years ago, doctors thought certain sicknesses were caused by bad Humors that inhabited a person’s body. These Humors had various properties. Drawing them out of a body was necessary to heal the patient. Poultices of warmed mud and oils applied to skin wound pulled out “evil” whilst maggots were applied to festering wounds.

Modern medicine scoffs at the word “humors” or the use of ”poultices” and many can’t believe maggots could be helpful.

Today we call these “humors” bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites. We use anti-microbials to get them “out of the body.” “Poultices” are still used though now they’re wound vacuums applied to festering wounds to improve drainage and assist healing. Maggots have this uncanny ability to only eat dead tissue. In modern medicine this is called debridement of necrotic tissue. And maggots are some of the best.

We can scoff at the world’s current terminology of how our world works. The words we use to describe something may not be entirely accurate, but where there’s smoke, there’s fire. In current debates, are we hung up on the words or the ideas?

In 400 years, what will they say about 2023? Will they think of us as we think of 1623?

And has the influence of politics helped or hurt the pursuit of the truth? Now or then? Are the words “liar” and “politician” redundant? Many speak of the separation of Church and State. Shouldn’t we also speak of the separation of State and Science?

[Ray]

Bob

I too am from the Café in the 1990s and remember it well. A lot of passionate debate, plus mutual support. Not unlike the current Café in that regard.

As to your post, you combine a lot of pejorative language with a distinct opacity of focus. Rather than vague generalisations and sideswipes, I’d be interested in your views, expressed in a cogent and reasoned manner - and here’s the tricky bit - supported by evidence.

Ray

[rode_kater]

We can scoff at the world’s current terminology of how our world works. The words we use to describe something may not be entirely accurate, but where there’s smoke, there’s fire. In current debates, are we hung up on the words or the ideas?

In 400 years, what will they say about 2023? Will they think of us as we think of 1623?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. We must remember that those people 400 years ago were not stupid, they had exactly the same biology and brains as us. All that has changed is the knowledge. I remind myself that when a high school student finishes school, they have caught up to the state-of-the-art of mathematics from the beginning of the 20th century. That's thousands of years of discovery learned in just a few years. The flip side is that very little of each age is actually important enough to be taught at school.

So yes, we are trying to discover new words and ideas and after it has all been crystallised it will be added as another paragraph to the school books and they will all consider it so obvious they wonder why we discussed it. With any luck in a few decades the history books will record this as the decade men wearing skirts became mainstream.

And has the influence of politics helped or hurt the pursuit of the truth? Now or then? Are the words “liar” and “politician” redundant? Many speak of the separation of Church and State. Shouldn’t we also speak of the separation of State and Science?

Science has always been directed by politics and business. Many famous scientists but also poets and writers only survived because they had a patron who paid them. In any case, science does not discover the truth, it attempts to create a model of the world to allow us to do bigger and better things, aka technology. Science helps us understand the world, politics is the mechanism by which we collectively shape the world.

The thing that has changed recently is that where in the past when scientists said something it was understood that it's a best guess of the current understanding of the world and it was used as a basis for determining future policy, now we get endless (essentially baseless) claims that scientists are producing politically biased results (which is an oxymoron, how can a scientific result be politically biased?). Scientists produce predictions about the future and you may not like the results, but the difference between science and religion is that science works even if you don't beleive it.

Still though, there is improvement. We're finally getting to the point where rather than declaring that anthropomorphic climate change is a hoax, instead people agree that it is happening, but they disagree with various policy responses. That's a reasonable area for discussion and firmly in the realm of politics. Doing nothing is a valid policy response, but at least be honest about what that means (according to current best guesses).

In any case, we do have separation between Science and Politics: science doesn't give a sh*t about what politicians think.

[ScotL]

In any case, we do have separation between Science and Politics: science doesn't give a sh*t about what politicians think.

Science doesn’t care what politicians think. This is true. Truth is truth no matter how well a policymaker spins it for their re-election campaign. But politicians have been spinning what science says now for a long time and this is why I don’t believe there is a good enough separation between science and state. Look no further than the attorney general of the state of florida who’s spouting the governors agenda. In my profession I am inundated by people claiming they absolutely know better than everyone else the risks of vaccines that I will for some reason not tell them. Yet when I ask them for details their “friend who is really really smart read a book by a really really smart person who has a PhD or something that reveals the lies.” Yet when I ask them why would I advocate for something that would hurt someone, I mostly get blank stares.

Occasionally one will mention that I get kick backs. I wish I did get kick backs with college age kids. But if you do the math, how much would you have to pay someone to get them to give something that they know will hurt another. Now multiply that by the number of doctors who advocate for vaccines.

Others say I just don’t know what I’m talking about. I’ve had numerous email exchanges with a few of these folks. I ask for the data to educate me so I know. I’m still waiting.

[pelmut]

... how can a scientific result be politically biased?

An individual result can't be politically biassed but overall the politicians may only fund research that is likely to produce results to suit their viewpoint or suppress results that contradict it.

[rode_kater]

... how can a scientific result be politically biased?

An individual result can't be politically biassed but overall the politicians may only fund research that is likely to produce results to suit their viewpoint or suppress results that contradict it.

This isn't a problem though. Most fundamental research is not determined by politicians but by councils of scientists. Politicians don't have the ability to even know what they should fund. Nor can they prevent the publishing of research. Most other research is done by businesses. Science is global, so even if some country is focussing on one area, other countries will focus on other areas. Being the first to discover something is very advantageous for countries. It all averages out in the end.

Additionally, a lot of research is done my underpaid overworked post graduates. They certainly aren't doing it for the money.

If there was some fundamental misunderstanding that disproved (e.g) climate change, you can bet Shell would have screamed it form the rooftops by now. You can bet they looked really really hard.

[pelmut]

...
If there was some fundamental misunderstanding that disproved (e.g) climate change, you can bet Shell would have screamed it form the rooftops by now. You can bet they looked really really hard.

That was exactly the example I had in mind.  We keep being told that all the evidence supports the theory -- that immediately rings warning bells because it suggests that the contrary evidence has either been suppressed or not sought.  It would be stretching credibility to breaking point to believe that this is the only developing area of science in which no contrary evidence exists.

There are quite a few reasons for doubting significant parts of the evidence claimed as supporting climate change* but I don't see many universities offering grants to investigate that doubt.  That lack of balance is driven by the policies of the universities and works against the higher ideals of pure scientific curiosity.  Climate change theory is a new religion and no academic body wants to lose funding by being seen as sceptics or disbelievers and risk incurring the wrath of their political masters who depend on believers for their votes.

Many of the 'solutions' to climate change are actually making it worse and Shell et al don't seem to be doing too badly out of them, so why would they want to sabotage this profitable bandwaggon by promoting counter- theories that would get them a bad press?


[*  I am not saying that climate change is or is not real, I am only saying that the evidence is being heavily skewed]

[ScotL]

There are quite a few reasons for doubting significant parts of the evidence claimed as supporting climate change* but I don't see many universities offering grants to investigate that doubt.  That lack of balance is driven by the policies of the universities and works against the higher ideals of pure scientific curiosity.  Climate change theory is a new religion and no academic body wants to lose funding by being seen as sceptics or disbelievers and risk incurring the wrath of their political masters who depend on believers for their votes.

[*  I am not saying that climate change is or is not real, I am only saying that the evidence is being heavily skewed]

Any examples to back up these statements? I’m not challenging you, I’m interested. As a scientist, I can discuss anything anytime anywhere. I’m trying to think of data that doesn’t support global warming but I’m striking out. There’s a lot of data that attempts to describe why it’s happening but I haven’t seen data to support that it’s not. And I am very interested to hear it

[TSH]

There are quite a few reasons for doubting significant parts of the evidence claimed as supporting climate change* but I don't see many universities offering grants to investigate that doubt.  That lack of balance is driven by the policies of the universities and works against the higher ideals of pure scientific curiosity.  Climate change theory is a new religion and no academic body wants to lose funding by being seen as sceptics or disbelievers and risk incurring the wrath of their political masters who depend on believers for their votes.

I was fine with your skepticism until you labeled climate change as a universally-accepted explanation as a "religion". That's a bit of a red flag, because I seen this card being used by conspiracy theorists who reject established scientific information so they can push their own narratives.

[pelmut]

There are quite a few reasons for doubting significant parts of the evidence claimed as supporting climate change* but I don't see many universities offering grants to investigate that doubt.  That lack of balance is driven by the policies of the universities and works against the higher ideals of pure scientific curiosity.  Climate change theory is a new religion and no academic body wants to lose funding by being seen as sceptics or disbelievers and risk incurring the wrath of their political masters who depend on believers for their votes.

I was fine with your skepticism until you labeled climate change as a universally-accepted explanation as a "religion". That's a bit of a red flag, because I seen this card being used by conspiracy theorists who reject established scientific information so they can push their own narratives.

I hoped I was being very careful not to reject anything or push any alternative narrative, but 'Climate Change' (interpreted in different ways to suit the circumstances) is being taken as a fully proved and indisputable fact which can be used to justify all sorts of actions.  In many cases those actions, far from 'saving the planet', would actually make things worse.  This is where scientific information is being rejected in favour of 'belief' -- which seems to be one of the main identifying characteristics of a religion.

[Barleymower]

A friendly supportive article to warm the cockles of MIS.
https://medium.com/bouncin-and-behavin- ... 298c59be8a

It brings in the our foe Sid Miller the Texas Agricultural Commisioner

[Coder]

A friendly supportive article to warm the cockles of MIS.

A great and hilarious article!