Scientists Versus The Great Unwashed

The NY Times reports on a Pew Research poll that separates the scientists (broadly defined) from the public.  Their lead:

When it comes to climate change, the teaching of evolution and the state of the nation’s research enterprise, there is a large gap between what scientists think and the views of ordinary Americans, a new survey has found.

...

And while almost all of the scientists surveyed accept that human beings evolved by natural processes and that human activity, chiefly the burning of fossil fuels, is causing global warming, general public is far less sure.

Almost a third of ordinary Americans say human beings have existed in their current form since the beginning of time, a view held by only 2 percent of the scientists. Only about half of the public agrees that people are behind climate change, and 11 percent does not believe there is any warming at all.

According to the survey, about a third of Americans think there is lively scientific debate on both topics; in fact, there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution and there is little doubt that human activity is altering the chemistry of the atmosphere in ways that threaten global climate.

Interesting - the factoid the Times forgot comes from a Pew chart - 70% of scientists (but only 51% of the public) favor "building more nuclear power plants".  On global warming, 49% of the public and 84% of scientists believe that "the earth is getting warmer because of human activity".

And eventually the Times gets to this caveat:

The survey, by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest scientific organization, involved about 2,000 members of the public and 2,500 scientists drawn from the rolls of the science advancement association, which includes teachers, administrators and others involved in science as well as researchers.

Hmm - I wonder of a survey of economists would also include teachers and administrators.  Where is the respect?

Comments

[Jack is Back!]

Anyone with a PhD in any "scientific" field can call themselves a "scientist". Actually, you don't need a PhD or an MS or even a BS to call yourself a scientist. Tom Cruise and John Travolta are scientologists, which means they are interested in the study of "scientists", right? So, what I want to know is how many of these so-called scientists have 1) PhD's, 2) those degrees are in climatology, and lastly, how many of them have in fact conducted disciplined research in the area of climate change, global warming, effects of CO2, environmental degradation, etc. I don't want the opinion of a person with a PhD in bakery science or civil engineering or archaeology. Lets keep it centered on the efficacy of the topic not the politics.

[Pofarmer]

I wonder. What percentage of scientists thought the stimulus was going to work?

[clarice]

Great work, TM I blogged this. PEW brought us the fake groundswell for CFR. If you see NYT or PEW on an article about a survey ,move on--they are both fully discredited.

[qrstuv]

To those who say that the "science" of "climate change" is settled, ask, "Which of the 23 or so climate models is the one that has been settled on, and what empirical evidence caused the others to be discarded?"

[sevenjoyce]

Welcome to the largest and most successful interracial dating site in the world!
______ Blackwhiteconnect.com _____ is for sincere singles of all races,
seriously looking for an interracial relationship or interracial marriage.
Thousands of new members daily. Join now to meet your dream date in this
comfortable community of different cultures and ethnicities.

[PeterUK]

"

Welcome to the largest and most successful interglacial dating site in the world!
______ Blackwhiteconnect.com _____ is for sincere singles of all races,
seriously looking for an interglacial relationship or interglacial marriage.
Thousands of new members daily. Join now to meet your dream climate in this
comfortable community of different climates and temperatures.

Posted by: sevenjoyce | July 10, 2009 at 08:53 AM

[centralcal]

LOL, PUK!

I see "joyce" has changed her screen name, must be getting the boot at a log of blogs under the former name.

[PeterUK]

When did science change from work in progress to being settled?
Since we are all living longer,at least for the time being,some scientists are going to be looking very stupid when new data,theories and inventions turn up.

[jean]

LOL PUK

[rse]

What do you do if Typepad keeps eating your comments?

Help!

[Captain Hate]

When did we get so many "scientists" who demonstrably don't understand the scientific method?

[jean]

I kind of like this fantasy land where anyone can be a scientist.I took biology in high-school and was a nurse for years so now I can add scientist to my resume

[Ignatz]

--What do you do if Typepad keeps eating your comments?--

Join the club?

--According to the survey, about a third of Americans think there is lively scientific debate on both topics; in fact, there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution and there is little doubt that human activity is altering the chemistry of the atmosphere in ways that threaten global climate.--

Time will tell whether this assertion is a more telling comment on the public, scientists or people such as the author.

There appears to be considerable doubt about the latter and there is considerable room for scientific doubt about the former, quite apart from any theological arguments.

[JM Hanes]

They probably interviewed political scientists.

[GMax]

Is there a more appropriately named pollster than "P(h)ew"????

[arizona car insurance]

Why exactly are the pro-global warming folks so against nuclear power and coal power?

[Ignatz]

--Why exactly are the pro-global warming folks so against nuclear power and coal power?--

Because this is not a scientific issue; it's a political one. Environmentalism is a political movement utterly hostile to sound science if promoting its movement requires it.

[Extraneus]

When did we get so many "scientists" who demonstrably don't understand the scientific method?

When we started paying them with taxpayer money.

[JM Hanes]

More science news via Contentions Pete Wehner. A short clip just couldn't possibly do it justice:

Dr. Francis S. Collins, who became the most visible spokesman for the human genome project, is President Obama's nominee to head the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Collins, who is 59 and a medical geneticist, led the government's successful effort to sequence the human genome. His selection was praised by top scientists and research advocacy organizations for whom the health institute in Bethesda, Md., is a crucial patron.

But praise for Dr. Collins's nomination was not universal. Some scientists and advocates tempered their enthusiasm with two basic objections.

The first is his very public embrace of religion. Dr. Collins, who was not raised with any religious training, wrote a book called "The Language of God," and he has given many talks and interviews in which he has described his conversion to Christianity as a 27-year-old medical school intern. "I came at this from a position of ignorance," he said. "I came at it from an intellectual point of view." Religion and genetic research have long had a fraught relationship, and some in the field are uneasy about what they see as Dr. Collins's evangelism.

The other objection stems from his leadership of the Human Genome Project, which is part of the N.I.H. Although Dr. Collins was widely praised in 2003 when the effort succeeded, the hopes that this discovery would yield an array of promising medical interventions have greatly dimmed, discouraging many.

While Dr. Collins cannot be blamed for the unexpected scientific hurdles facing genetic research, he played an important role in raising expectations impossibly high. In interviews, he had called the effort "the most important and the most significant project that humankind has ever mounted" and predicted it would quickly allow everyone to know the genetic risks for many diseases.

Some scientists and advocates for people suffering from diseases criticized the extraordinary amount of money and attention the sequencing effort garnered, saying it distracted from more fruitful areas of research.

In other words, when a believer cracked the genome, other folks' grant money dried up. Some people think he should have refused to be interviewed. Some people think it's just not fair! Plus he "resigned in 2008 as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute," and everybody knows what that means.

[Jack is Back!]

PeterUK,

We are now 2 days out of Southampton and the buzz is all about the Ashes and England's start. But Golden Lion Pub is pretty quite today considering the Ponting and Katich (sp?) partnership. But it looks like they are finally picking up some needed wickets. Gloomy here.

[Strawman Cometh]

rse,
delete your typepad cookies.

LUN is an interesting fellow: "long-legged mac daddy"! indeed

[JM Hanes]

Be sure to give the second paragraph above a close reading, lest you miss the implication that the "top scientists" who praised the choice of Collins have a vested financial interest in pleasing the powers that be.

[Dave (in MA)]

Interesting - the factoid the Times forgot comes from a Pew chart - 70% of scientists (but only 51% of the public) favor "building more nuclear power plants".

Nit-pick: When I first heard the term years ago, "factoid" was to "fact" as to "humanoid" is to "human". It was commonly-believed piece of information that resembled a fact but was not.

[JM Hanes]

rse:

Earlier this a.m. I had trouble too. Clicking Preview just resulted in an endlessly spinning progress wheel.

When that happens, I copy the post, then refresh the page, and paste it back into the comment box. Instead of trying to preview first, I just click Post. You still get the spinning progress wheel, but if you open the thread in a new window, you'll find that the comment does actually get posted.

You could probably refresh the page instead of opening a new window, but I'm not sure how long it takes till the post actually appears. I don't close the malfunctioning page, till I've confirmed the comment has made it into to the thread.

[clarice]

HEH,jmh.

When we reach the end of our scientific research, of course, we still are left with the pure mystery of life, aren't we?

[Strawman Cometh]

--Why exactly are the pro-global warming folks so against nuclear power and coal power?--

To be fair, coal has it's problems, environmental degradation where mined and some emissions from coal burners that haven't been cleaned up yet, especially mercury. They have good technology in place removing the sulfur compounds that were causing acid rain - you never hear about acid rain anymore, some of the old power plants probably still need to be fitted with these stack scrubbers. I don't give a sh!t about the CO2, we need the CO2. I would imagine that the prospective imposition of CO2 sequestering nonsense standard is delaying investment and further deployment of real pollution controls. But mainly they're opposed to coal because the US has a lot of it and they saw heard about a scary "documentary".

They're opposed to nuclear because they saw another scary movie.

[Extraneus]

Hanging in there at -7.

[matt]

while scientists are trained to observe the data and report the results objectively, what I have found over the past 30 years of working with scientists is that most are so specialized these days that they are very good in their own narrow field, but that their broader knowledge is limited by the necessities of commitment to their field. This is true across broad swathes of our culture today.

There are very few people with the wide range of backgrounds necessary to synthesize logical ideas.That was the role of philosophers and "natural scientists" at one time. This specialization, plus the dumbing down of so many fields, is a part of the reason we are in the state we are today.

Science is a new, false religion to some, as is the whole Gaia/Environmentalist/PETA fantasy. Throw in atheism, and voila, we are living in a Nietzschean fantasyland. Remember, 60% of the country voted for a guy who intentionally kept his fingerprints off of anything he ever touched to hide his agenda.

that's just my devalued $0.02 today....

[Old Dad]

I thought the left was opposed to torture, and yet they routinely torture language, logic, facts, and even poor defenseless factoids.

Let's look at what scientists broadly agree on. CO2 is a "greenhouse gas". CO2 absorbs and then desorbs ifra-red energy. All else being equal, one would reasonably expect that increases in atmospheric CO2 would lead to some warming. Except when it doesn't.

Of course, in climate all else is not equal. Climate is influenced by an incredibly complex set of variables that we do not yet understand. Key phrase--we do not yet understand.

"Scientists" who wish to influence policy and pocket fat grants may not under any circumstances admit that policy recommendations are based on something that is, as yet, poorly understood.

[clarice]

A poster at AT where I blogged this said in his experience the pressies at Pew distort the studies (to the left)when they hand them out to reporters. Since reporters rarely go beyond the handouts if this is the practice (a) the board must surely know about it (b) and must agree or they'd halt the practice.

[JM Hanes]

Exactly, Clarice, although you don't have to get to the end of science before you stumble onto paradox. I remember contemplating the universe as a teen and wondering, if it's infinite, what does it look like? If it's finite, what's beyond it, and what's beyond that? It also seemed to me that my friends doing higher math got to the imponderables pretty dang fast.

When I was growing up, we weren't allowed to use certain tones of voice in the house, except, oddly enough, at the dinner table where heated arguments with our parents and each other were acceptable -- and frequent. Referring to the sum of an infinite series is still a family joke.

I'm not sure why the idea that there are things the human brain is incapable of comprehending bothers anyone -- or why it is presumed to affect anyone's attitude toward the practice of science. As a matter of logic, that's something which cannot be proved either true or false. To deny such a possibility seems the very essence of hubris.

[Pofarmer]

Just heard Barack Hussein talking Gibberish on Health Care again.

The quote was "We can't get deficits under control untill we control health care costs."

Now, there are several things about that statement that are scary. Number one, you'll notice the disconnect between quality of care and costs. That not withstanding, would someone care to do the mental gymnastics that somehow the current TWO TRILLION dollar deficit is due to health care costs supposedly in the private sector?

[PD]

There are also things about that statement that are (as usual) profoundly deceitful, such as that he actual cares about deficits.

[PD]

How about "We can't get deficits under control until we spend less money"?

[Fresh Air]

Po--

Zero is either the dumbest man alive or thinks mindless recitation of fourth-grade-level talking points elevate them to an argument. Thanks again to the morons who voted for this guy!

Also, is this supposed to be Axelturf at his finest? His best argument for socialized medicine is that it will control costs? What happened to all that "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" stuff? Did they temporarily forget they are Marxists, or this Chicago-style doublespeak?

[Jane]

"We can't get deficits under control untill we control health care costs."

He says that a lot and it freaks me out every single time because you know lots and lots of people are nodding and saying "ahhh so that's the problem. Let's fix it right away."

On a more optimistic note, people I associate with are hearing a lot of buyers remorse right here in MA.

Me not so much but I'm not sure I would. Everyone is talking about teh economy and are hanging on for his "plan" to work. The failure thus far has not translated into: "It's all Obama's fault" - yet.

[clarice]

jmh, I like to think of death as something out of Kubrick's 2001:Space Odyssey-we just fly thru space and dimensions to another place.(Although I'm still so tethered to this planet and time I can only think of separation from those people and things I love.)

[RichatUF]

PD-

And he has only found money to cut out of NASA and Defense budgets.

Healthcare budgets Medicare, Medicaid, IA, and VA are less than the Defense Budget and Social Security is a bigger problem.

[matt]

riddle me this, Batman Obama!

why is there less fraud & corruption in the private sector that there in Medicare/Medicaid?

[RichatUF]

Fresh Air-

What happened to all that "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" stuff? Did they temporarily forget they are Marxists, or this Chicago-style doublespeak?

Read his budget. Plenty of that in the healthcare section. Rationing and higher taxes.

[glasater]

(Although I'm still so tethered to this planet and time I can only think of separation from those people and things I love.)

Paraphrasing WF Buckley......
If one were to be so lucky to reach that other dimension after death--would one really care to lose earthly things?

[Jack is Back!]

We can better control health care costs if people who smoke, like the POTUS, would quit. I would love it if that little pudgy, librarian looking, white house reporter would rephrase the question like that:)

He will never call on her again, though.

[matt]

"We can only get the deficit under control" if people are working and paying taxes, you moron.

[peter]

If it's finite, what's beyond it, and what's beyond that?

That's what I want to know about the deficit after four years of Obama?

[Mary]

Francis Collins spoke at our youngest sons graduation. It maybe the only graduation speech that I remember. The best part of the speech can be found at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyXgm126Ko8

The first part of the speech was better than most commencement speeches. Unlike many speakers he does not seem to take himself too seriously. But most of you who have sat thru too many boring commencement speeches will enjoy this.

LUN

[Janet]

Climate change and evolution...the 2 theories that the government insists we believe. So far, only evolution has been court mandated, but give climate change time.

Both of these theories share a common development - Fact A is discovered. Fact B is discovered. Connect Fact A and Fact B with a "Just So" story.

Really, read any news release about climate change or evolution and you will see that there are very few facts and a whole lotta made up gibberish/maybe/could be/ we think that fills in the article.

[matt]

OT but the description of Obama's meeting with the Pope as "frank" was interesting.

He did get a photo, unlike Pelosi, but it wasn't very flattering. Strange composition. I don't think that is going up on the mantlepiece at the White House.

[Janet]

Anyway, I'm a proud member of the great unwashed.

GO GOD!!!

[Pofarmer]

He says that a lot and it freaks me out every single time because you know lots and lots of people are nodding and saying "ahhh so that's the problem. Let's fix it right away."

Are "people" really that poorly informed?

[RichatUF]

Pofarmer-

Are "people" really that poorly informed?

Like you really need to ask.

[JM Hanes]

It's even simpler: How does spending a trillion dollars qualify as cutting costs?

Jack is Back:

"We can better control health care costs if people who smoke, like the POTUS, would quit."

In addition to pissing me off, you neglect to account for the lost tax revenues.

[Strawman Cometh]

Hundreds of bodies dug up in Chicago grave reselling scheme - everyone an Obama voter.

[JM Hanes]

peter:

"That's what I want to know about the deficit after four years of Obama?"

That's were the sum of an infinite series comes in.

[peter]

Hey, everybody. It's Friday. Click on the LUN and enjoy a big smile.

[Strawman Cometh]

Come on people, evolution is settled science. It is the best theory to describe the facts as we know them. Exact mechanisms are debated, but the notion that organisms have changed and new species arisen over the great march of time is not. Please don't link AGW scepticism to evolution, that's part of the NYT's and warmerists game.

[Extraneus]

"We can't get deficits under control untill we control health care costs."

It's a nice two-fer. If he doesn't get socialized health care, he can blame massive deficits on that. If he does get a health care bill, he can still blame deficits on the fact that he didn't get quite as much "control" as he needed, and that we may need a Health Con 2.

"There are those who think we can get deficits under control without a Facist takeover of 15% of the economy..."

[Fresh Air]

Smokers die early. Their societal costs are far outweighed by the taxes they pay and their early deaths.

I actually find Zero's penchant for cigarettes to be one of his only admirable qualities.

[PeterUK]

"Come on people, evolution is settled science".

Not quite,there is the "revolution " theory whereby new species can only evolve when dominant species become extinct or sufficiently reduced to allow the development of different species.
This could be brought about by extinction events,large impact in the Gulf of Mexico,eruptions in the Deccan Traps,disease,over grazing,loss of food source,forest fires,flooding,adopting socialism even climate change.
The only thing is sure,the dominant species has to go first.

[John Hansen]

In other surprising news...

A higher percentage of nurses than the general public believes that more pay for nurses would increase the quality of healthcare in this country.

A higher percentage of teachers than the general public believes that greater funding for teachers would increase quality of education in this country.

Union representatives at a higher percentage believe the key to the economy is stronger unions...

Wake-up people. Follow the money trail. Scientists, especially when you include administrators, will believe what gets them funding.

Instead of listening to a survey of what undoubtedly includes a vast number of second rate scientists, look at what a man who has truly proven himself to be an independent thinker says. Freeman Dyson is an unabashed denouncer of catastrophic global warming. I trust him rather than the AAAS.

[JM Hanes]

Ignatz:

"there is considerable room for scientific doubt about the [theory of evolution], quite apart from any theological arguments."

Strictly speaking, the doubts about evolution are not scientific, as long as observable phenomena conform to a theory as expected. Doubt enters in with the discovery of an anomaly. As anomalies multiply, there is a tipping point when they overwhelm the theory and it is discarded, to be replaced, in time, with another comprehensive theory which incorporates the new information.

Strawman Cometh:

"Come on people, evolution is settled science."

"Settled science" sounds way too much like "settled law" to me. While I have no real quarrel with the point you're making, the warmingistas who tout the term seem to believe that science is settled by consensus, when nothing could be more diametrically opposed to legitimate scientific practice. History is littered with such conventional wisdom that has proved entirely false.

[JM Hanes]

Fresh Air:

"Societal costs" is a conveniently squishy term. I could have sworn it was you who posed the question about the application of averaging at the individual level, or am I mistaking you for another poster?

[Dave (in MA)]

Hey Joyce, How about setting up a a Halfblackbarelylegalhispanicconnect.com service?

[Strawman Cometh]

Not quite,there is the "revolution " theory whereby new species can only evolve

Exactly, another theory of the underlining mechanism of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium is another. No mention of spontaneous generation.

[PeterUK]

"Exactly, another theory of the underlining mechanism of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium is another. No mention of spontaneous generation."

Exactly the science isn't settled at all,simply an underlying theory.

[Extraneus]

I have physics books from approximately 100 years ago which speak of "the ether" in rather certain terms.

[MayBee]

Mark Knoller just Twittered that Obama referred to his Notre Dame speech when talking to the Pope.

[Fresh Air]

I could have sworn it was you who posed the question about the application of averaging at the individual level

Wasn't me. I don't even remember the reference.

Agreed on "societal" costs. Let's just say smokers pay more than their share when you add taxes into the equation and subtract public-paid or subsidized healthcare. Really, though, what you are talking about is four or five types of cancer that are dramatically elevated. Coincidentally, the most prevalent in smokers, lung cancer, reduces longevity significantly.

[Extraneus]

I was listening to Rush's stand-in, Mark Davis, earlier, who spent some time talking about how the military is considering banning tobacco use, due to the long-term "societal costs," such as VA benefits.

[sylvia]

First of all it depends how you phrase the questions. Asking this "49% of the public and 84% of scientists believe that "the earth IS GETTING WARMER because of human activity" --- "getting warmer" is a whole lot different than causing catastrophic global warming. If I just light a candle, that just made the earth a little bit "warmer"- that doesn't mean I just caused global warming.

No the debate is not over until we figure out the role of the sun in causing warming and cooling. Or we figure out what the margin of error is for CO2. In other words how much can we pump out before we irretrievably damage the earth. A lesser amount of CO2 is absorbed and a greater amount might just be more insulation on top of more insulation, which pretty much does nothing.

It seems we have been pumping out plenty of CO2 for pretty much 50 years, maybe a hundred years and we still don't see the world coming to an end. In fact the hottest years on record recently have been in the 1930s, a factor they say contributed to the Great Depression with droughts etc. Who's to say thousands of years of a little more of this will mean anything different, other than slight changes.

So these questions need to be answered first before the debate is settled.

[Jane]

Peter,

That was great!

[peter]

Glad you liked it. Here it is again at the LUN.

[sylvia]

And let's just use common sense. Before 1900 the earth's population was a lot less and there were no warming caused by electricity and gas. Maybe just home heating in the northern hemisphere, but I like I said the population was probably less than half of now, so that effect was tiny.

After 1900, we started using cars. After 1960 the population grew, we had more cars, used air conditioinng, flew planes commonly, etc.

So in the last hundred years we must have seen our use of CO2 grow exponentially huge. Maybe thousands of times more from the low level that it was. But where is the great change in our temperature? I mean I don't think it's a delayed reaction, because how long does it take for the CO2 to cause this warming? I would guess pretty quickly because once it's released in the atmosphere, it's there.

So what our own eyes see defies science. And now that we can see population trends start to stabilize, even if we double or quadruple our current CO2 use, what evidence is there that will cause that much difference than the huge amount, maybe thousands of times, we raised CO2 already. Plus with increasing marginal use of green tech, we should be able to further stabilize the CO2 increase. So these questions have to be answered for me first before we bankrupt ourselves.

[Strawman Cometh]

JMH is correct, yes, "settled science" is not the best choice of words. The point is this, the notion that we arrived at this point in the history of life on earth through evolution is not a subject of contention in the life sciences. Identifying the underlying biochemical/genetic mechanisms and the geo-astro-historical drivers is still subject to research and speculative modeling.
The notion that anthropogenic CO2 loading will catastrophically warm the planet is definitely a subject of contention among climatologists. IMO, it would be a rout if the warmeristas weren't getting all of the grant money.

[Mike Huggins]

(Zombie comes up with another good one) Speaking of Science, Look what our new White House Science advisor used to believe back when he and the Ehrlich's were doing post-doc work with Dr. Mengele.

Isn't it great that with Obama we now have this tremendous respect for science, unlike with that "idiotBush?"

[Dave (in MA)]

Mike, Holy crap!

Were it not for the ascending Øbamunist unemployment rate, I'd like to post that article on my bulletin board at work, here where hundreds of people were clapping at the cafeteria TV on 01-20, but I would like to be able to keep paying my bills as long as possible.

[PD]

Mike: re: Holdren, Obama's science advisor, I notice that people who yelp about overpopulation and what "needs" to be done about it uniformly fail to implement the policy that would immediately decrease the population by one.

[PeterUK]

PD,
Yes the bastards should at least set an example.

[PD]

PUK: Yep, it's the usual leftist "I'll tell you what to do so I don't have to."

[PeterUK]

PD,
Well you have the bitterness,guns and bibles. Why don't you show them evolution an practice?

[Mike Huggins]

PD - No, no. We need "leaders" like Holdren who will do the hard work that is necessary to ensure that our "Dear Leader's" "programs" are enacted. It is you and I who should "take one for" the Einsatzgruppen - oops, Entschuldigung - I meant "the team."

Are we just steps away from that true "Utopia" that the "progressives" have always pushed for?"

[boris]

Evolution is like relativity and quantum mechanics in that they are incompatible with common sense experience.

One difference is that "belief" in relativity and quantum mechanics is not being used to browbeat Christians.

"See ??? S E E ??? PROVES ...There is no God ...
N O ... S U C H ... T H I N G !!!
Now go away"

But suggest to some evolution believers that for more than the last 1000 years Western Culture has made practice of traditional marriage a legal requirement to reproduce and that MAY be why most people now instinctively affirm the traditional definition ... HEY THAT is highly speculative pseudo science !!! (dspite that it's been standard practice in breeding traits into horses, pets crops etc for millenia)

[clarice]

boris, Did you see they've been able to produce sperm from stem cells? Glad I probably won't be around to see this brave new world that's fast approaching.

[peter]

boris, Did you see they've been able to produce sperm from stem cells? Glad I probably won't be around to see this brave new world that's fast approaching.
Mark Steyn, subbing for Rush yesterday had some funny riffs on this. He said males will still be around to cut lawns.

[Extraneus]

How do you know you won't hang around long enough to get the immortality stem cell implants?

[Extraneus]

That's what I'm banking on.

[Frau Atomkraft]

From what I've read, the Pew Foundation lost its impartiality long ago. It joined those other surname foundations taken over by the left.

Clarice might enjoy "Old Man's War" by John Scalzi (2006). It's a science fiction treat for those who can't find St. Jane's.

That "Utopia" may surprise the progressives sooner than we think.

[daddy]

Just something I've noticed about academia:

The other day at a Pizza Pub, sat on the barstool next to a salmon biologist, and started shooting the breeze about his science project. During the conversation I brought up the subject of Dragonfly Nymphs being the cause of legless frogs. He did not know what I was talking about as he had not heard that and was sceptical, and said he still understood the culprit to be manmade environmental pollution. Next we wandered into a bit of micro-evolution occuring locally on the stickelback fish, as a result of the 1964 Alaskan Earthquake creating brackish ponds and pure ponds, and mildly differing stickelback varieties slightly being selected to advantage in each, supposedly as a result of the new demands imposed by the changed environment, which I happen to be aware of as a topic thru Steven Weiner's excellent "Beak Of The Finch" book, plus knowing a local biologist doing stickelback research. He was unaware of it. He was unaware of the dead bald eagles and gulls on Rat Island. Along the way, I asked for reading recomendations, (as is my wont) and got a few, but generally found out that I had read them (Brian Greene/Tim Ferris/etc) whereas he hadn't. He knew what was the stuff to read, but he just hadn't had the time. This I have run into before.

What I have found is that frequently I have read more of the public science literature currently available than these experts. They can discuss minutia of some life frequency of their particular variety of king salmon, but somehow specialization or the demands of whatever they do on a regular basis leaves them unaware of a broader picture of the science, and less well read than an avid non-scientist like me with fervent curiosity and unlimited opportunity to read whatever the heck I want. I hope this doesn't come across as harsh or pompous, but using our Kim as an example, my guess would be she is generally more knowledgeable and better read across the entire spectrum on this entire Global Warming question, than a lot of the experts she is constanly and correctly flaying on her links, yet I imagine she would also honestly admit to not being an expert in that field, just more aware of what experts in the field ought to be aware of.


Anyhow, it is simply something that I have noticed anecdotally. It serves just as well when discussing "The Press" concerning travel or military ranks or airplane accidents, or any other stuff where I notice serious gaps in what should be aspects of fundamental awareness. Just something I've noticed.

[clarice]

Well, daddy, you are a VERY smart person with the capacity to be an autodidact and the great interest in so many things that you have knowledge across a broader spectrum than most people.

[Janet]

I believe Beak of the Finch was written by Jonathan Weiner. My take away point with the book is that the finch never became some other specie. The beak changes, the finch is still a finch.

[Mike Huggins]

I was pretty ignorant about the "views" of Obama "Science Czar" John Holdren until I read Zombie's post today, but others definitely sounded the alarm early when he was nominated for the post; see FrontPage: "Obama's Biggest Radical", He doesn't seem shy about his ideas, as "Ecoscience" from which Zombie extracts large passages is right there on his Curriculum Vitae.

According to a - I'm guessing - Pro-human-induced-climate-change website: Holdren sailed through his Feb. Senate confirmation hearing with "pretty much smooth sailing."(only David Vitter [R-LA] questioned his earlier views, with Republican Senators Hutchison, Snowe, Isakson, and Martinez pretty much giving him a pass).

Apparently, except for John Tierney at the NY Times, the MSM was pretty uninterested in Holdren's past views. In fact, according to the WaPo: Stanford University professor Stephen H. Schneider said it was critical that Holdren take office as soon as possible, because "I know no others who bring the triple-play capability of John on security, energy and environment." . So you see, there's no reason to worry about "Science" under Obama; "Alles in Ordnung" ("Halt! Your paper's please. How long have you been associated with Anti-Social elements?"

[Fresh Air]

Daddy--

I don't know about dragonfly nymphs, but the extremely handsome helgrammite makes for some tasty trout meals.

[Stephanie]

Hey y'all seen this?

I believe the proper term for him is "son of a bitch."

LUN

[matt]

If you go to China you can see the effects of runaway pollution from a different perspective, and that is probably the greater concern. If you fly in over Hong Kong, where the air used to be clean and is now a very dirty brown almost every day, or go down to Keelung in Taiwan and see 30 miles of effluent from steel mills and shipyards staining the ocean, you get the picture of a Dickensian planet with dead seas and corrosive pollution a la Blade Runner.In some places in Asia it not that far from their daily reality.

Any way you look at it, we have to do better job somehow in conserving and husbanding our resources. And somehow, we have to get countries like China and India to buy into this.

Jim Hansen of NASA does have some legitimate points, but the reality we are living in right now is that the ability of the earth to regenerate itself is in doubt.What happens when the fishing runs out or half the Gulf of Mexico is a dead zone? As an outdoorsman I have seen a lot of this already. It's a hell of a problem.

There is little sense to the debate at all unless we figure out the more fundamental issues. The CO2 issue may be a boondoggle, but we do need to implement things like a Manhattan Project on nuclear energy to make power cheaper and cleaner for a lot of other reasons.

LUN

[Sue]

Stephanie,

I just read that over at Ace's. You are being nice calling him a SOB.

[narciso]

I was going to LUN, that, which SOB were you referring to Schmidt, Davis, or McCain,
hard to tell then apart, at this point. So she shows initiative, and when they refuse to support her thry stab her in the front, Excuse me,!@#$@%$&^(&*)_()*&^%$#$, that's better.

[RichatUF]

Stephanie-

Oh good grief. Would McCain's campaign been any worse run if it had be Obama's staffers running it? The paling around with terrorists was about the best thing they did post-convention.

[Stephanie]

S'um Bitches...

Damn them all.

Better? ;)

[RichatUF]

matt-

you get the picture of a Dickensian planet with dead seas and corrosive pollution a la Blade Runner

Then why don't we find a way to commoditize pollution control technology and sell it to them. At some point their environment is just going to be so bad that, even with more authoritian and corrupt political systems, they'll have to clean up. Maybe we need less tranzi self-rightous lecturing and more modesty.

Jim Hansen of NASA does have some legitimate points...

No he doesn't. He is a con artist and should be shunned from society. That worthless piece of shit was flown to London to testify as an "expert" so that some environmentalist terrorists could get off. And justice beinging as it is, the eco-terrorists walked.

There is little sense to the debate at all unless we figure out the more fundamental issues. The CO2 issue may be a boondoggle, but we do need to implement things like a Manhattan Project on nuclear energy to make power cheaper and cleaner for a lot of other reasons

CO2 and AGW is a boondoggle-there is no debate. And we don't need anything of the scope of the Manhattan Project for nuclear energy either. We just need let nuclear power companies build their plants, without fighting for decades, courtroom battles with eco-cultists and government regulators.

[RichatUF]

Stephanie-

jackasses. sh*t nuggets. stupid m-fers.

[clarice]

The people who head up these campaigns are not smart except in one area--looking after themelves---- otherwise they wouldn't get paid so much to do such bad jobs of it.