Profile image
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Upcoming March for Government Science Encourages Falsity

Saturday, February 11, 2017 20:35
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

from The Daily Bell:

Scientists are worried about the Trump administration: His pick for the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t seem interested in protecting the environment, his energy secretary lacks the publication record of his highly academic predecessors, and the president himself once tweeted that global warming is a Chinese hoax. In light of such issues, they’re planning a march to advocate the use of scientific evidence in political decision-making. Was there ever an alternative to evidence? -Bloomberg

The march is going to take place on April 22, and chances are it will receive a great deal of coverage, much as the protest by women did. The march is not going to divorce science from political decision-making, only advocate its proper use.

The article says that people in the march may not understand the difference between fact-based scientific evidence and marketing material. “Along with a march, maybe we need better education on the difference between science and politicized pseudoscience.”


dditionally, the march is scheduled for Earth Day , which comes with its own set of confusions. The article tells us that the first Earth Day was less of a celebration and more of an obituary. This was because researchers at the time were very firm that human being were about to deplete the earth’s remaining resources and “wipe themselves off the planet.”

More:

Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve to death. Nobel Laureate George Wald estimated that civilization would end within 15 or 30 years unless humans took immediate action.

Life magazine ran a terrifying cover story, saying that “scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence” to predict that “by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect the earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.”

It was more hype than science. None of the predictions had testable hypotheses. They simply coupled historical population growth rates with an absurd doomsday model. Ridiculous as the claims were, no one really wanted to refute them or argue against the conservation of natural resources.

The article goes on to point out that statistics can be used by both sides to make points about an industry. Cigarette  manufacturers were assaulted by lung cancer victims accounting for 3.3 percent of over 15,000 deaths but only .9 percent of 3,726 deaths among non-smokers.

But the cigarette companies turned this around and claimed that because the number was very low, there actually was no causation. The larger point of the article is that science is not always conclusive but that it doesn’t have to be to communicate a possible dangerous trend.

For us, this is a controversial notion. We tend to believe that just because science indicates something doesn’t mean that the result should be an inevitable legal tarnishing or outright banning of the product in question.

Read more @ The Daily Bell:

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 1 comment
  • desertspeaks

    hmm is global warming real?.. well that’s a good question, isn’t it? many believe the LIES of the 97% consensus of scientists BUT HOW DID THEY ARRIVE AT THAT 97%??? Yet another good question!!

    Author Mark Steyn dug into that question in the search for truth.
    What he uncovered was so much fraud and deception by climate change propagandists that he compiled an entire book on the matter entitled A Disgrace to the Profession.
    97 per cent of the world’s scientists supposedly believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming requiring massive government intervention. That percentage derives from a survey conducted for a thesis by M R K Zimmerman.
    The “survey” was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. (30%)
    Of the responding scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America.
    Only 6.2 per cent came from Canada. So the United States is over represented even within that North American sample.
    Nine per cent of US respondents are from California. So California is over represented within not just the US sample: it has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
    Of the ten per cent of non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
    Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them “experts.”
    Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with “the consensus”. That’s where the 97 per cent comes from.
    The 97% consensus number comes from just 75 scientists that were hand-picked from an email survey.

    NOW TAKE YOUR BS STORY OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND SHOVE IT!

Top Stories
Recent Stories
 

Featured

 

Top Global

 

Top Alternative

 

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.