Tribute to Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson

Science literacy is at unacceptable lows in the U.S.

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson is one of the few figures in science that can explain and outline scientific facts in a way that is both entertaining and informative.

St. Petersburg College:

Authors@Google:

Hacked “Climategate” Emails Did Prove One Thing

(NCTimes.com Blogs)

I keep my eye on politics, and since the uploading of some illegally obtained data from Britain’s CRU the political right wing has lost it’s mind. Science-denial has gripped them and they intend to brow-beat on anyone who questions their faulty logic. This hacking incident being called “Climategate” by the anti-environmentalist right wingers has brought to light to discerning observers that these people are divorced from all logic and rational thought. That they would defend any notion that fit into their preconceived world view regardless of an insurmountable body of research that clearly amounts to scientific fact.

The fact that almost every person the right supports this flawed and debunked theory that these emails prove anything beyond a level of professional bias being enacted against skeptics of the CRU is absurd.

Britain and the U.S. have a high number of global warming deniers and in the aftermath of this hacking it is found that the hackers are likely members of such a group in Britain so it is much like the other propaganda crusades of the right.

There is clear evidence of a willful ignorance on behalf of these people locked in outright denial.

--



Sara Palin wrote on her Facebook page recently:

“this is doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that makes the public feel like owning an SUV is a sin against the planet.”

I find it laughable that a woman who pushed scare tactics like “he [Obama] associates with terrorists” during the campaign suddenly thinks alarmism is so awful.

Her “environmental priesthood” is scientists around the world and not just environmentalists like myself. She is suggesting the that scientific community is invested in some larger scheme and it is completely manufactured on her part.

And this climate science is not designed to make “the public feel” anything. Science stands on it’s own, apart from this hyperbolic standard she has set up.



Al Gore responded to Palin’s comments:

GORE: Well, the scientific community has worked very intensively for 20 years within this international process, and they now say the evidence is unequivocal. A hundred and fifty years ago this year was the discovery that CO-2 traps heat. That is a -- a principle in physics. It's not a question of debate. It's like gravity; it exists.

What many environmentalists are loathe to point out is that like all recent science there is “wiggle room” around different aspects of the science in regards to causality, though most studies confirm the notion that man-made greenhouse gasses are the primary factor contributing to global climate change. The elements here that are simply not up for debate are exactly the elements the conservatives have grabbed on to and frankly at a certain point I have to just laugh.

--

Michael Oppenheimer, Director of the Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy Department of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School:

There is a mountain of scientific evidence pointing to human-caused climate change; all available to any skeptic. Colder than normal October in the US is not a climate trend, no matter how often it is repeated on uneducated blogs and by unintelligent cable news pundits. It remains true that Earth has warmed more than 1 degree (F) over the last century largely due to buildup of human-made greenhouse gasses. It remains the case that the projections of future climate change are every bit as discouraging as they were before the recent flap began.

Joseph Romn, physicist of the Center for American Progress:

Evidence of global warming is getting clearer, while opponents are redoubling their efforts at misinformation-disinformation campaigns.

============================================

UPDATE!

InformationIsBeautiful.net has an excellent online visualization of the real debate between climate skeptics and science at-large.

Two Stories Worth Note From Scientific American

---

"Meditation on Demand" by Peter B. Reiner

---

"Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control The World" by Michael Shermer

---

Too Much For One President?

Under my understanding of American civics current President Obama is by no means taking on more than is possibly sustainable, in terms of policy changes and economic recovery efforts.

In fact in my estimation he has, in regards to national security and financial stability, done exactly what was and is needed to ensure success in our efforts to revive this bankrupt economy.

The issue of undertaking 'too much' comes primarily from the right wing. Though others may question the wisdom of taking on so many issues at once as wise it is exclusively the right wing that declares this unsound policy.

The concept of 'political capital' is primary in understanding the recent actions of President Obama in his first two months in office. Political capital does not remain in any politician’s favor for long.

The willingness to address major issues like Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Enhanced Interrogation and vigorous fiscal stimulus only prove to those who grasp civics that the President intends in make good on the many campaign promises made to voters like myself.

While many more issues abound, and ultimately I am one who says that Obama is not doing enough, the raw fact remains that the current administration is showing a genuine interest in fulfilling the will of the people beyond simply nationalist fever or populist outrage but to rather try and reach attainable goals in our time.

Eric Lightborn

http://americapress.wordpress.com/

March 29th 2009

Global Warming: Politi-Science or Fact?

Let’s crack this egg wide open.

Here’s what I understand so far:
------------------------------------------------------------
Years back, a group of scientists came together and presented a case to the world based on their work.

They sought to show essentially three items:

a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) gases are increasing due to human action.
b) CO2 causes a green-house gas effect that causes global warming. Global warming causes extreme climate change including extreme colds, warms and weather.
c) Unless CO2 levels decrease worldwide the planet will be damaged beyond a repairable state.
------------------------------------------------------------

Now, another group of scientists recently came out to try to disprove the ‘global warming agenda’ citing their own evidence.

They are seeking to show essentially these three items:

a) CO2 is a natural gas that is less harmful to environment than reported previously. Harmful gases such Carbon Monoxide should fall under government regulation but not CO2.
b) They have studied the green-house gas effect data presented and do not concur that this is the cause of climate change. The planet is undergoing cyclical changes not recorded previously due to lack of technology required.
c) CO2 levels and their mandated decrease is ‘politicizing science’ and not a scientific agenda but rather an anti-industry agenda.

------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t pretend to have all the facts on this but I’ve listened to a lot of commentary on it, I can assure you.

The bottom-line is that no significant figure in any government is coming forward about the one important issue to address:

CAN WE LIMIT CO2 GAS EMISSIONS AND CONTINUE TO GROW AS AN INDUSTRIAL NATION?

Those versed in this topic will know that certain major super-power nations (China & Russia) refuse to participate in carbon credit programs or CO2 gas mandates on their industries.
They believe that regulating such gases will cause a loss of profit necessary to maintain their populations. Or a similar case made in defense of themselves.

I would like to take the time and read both of these studies and all the data and every professional I can find who ever said / wrote anything about it. But this is what I see. One side brings a valid argument about how far we can do these actions and remain strong in industry and the other side brings a valid point that once enough damage is done in ignorance there is no return from ruin.

Michael Crichton, famed author, held the opinion before his death in 2008 that the combining of politics and science was something he saw as very possible in coming years and very dangerous in its nature. I tend to agree with the author of “Jurassic Park” but I don’t know if I fully trust some internet downloaded research data, and I’m not flying of to foreign countries to gather up all the documents either.

I just want to focus on empirical evidence when we talk science and focus on personal conviction when he talk politics. That’s all. Is that some crazy request?

I feel it important for those who didn’t know to know that the worldwide scientific community accepts the idea of green house gases effecting current climate changes.

------------------------------------------------------------
And let us not forget the pure-politics side of this:

Former American Vice-President Al Gore of the Democratic Party has run up the ideological hill and he is not coming back down on this one.

He is behind the ‘carbon credit’ concept along with others. Gore remains one of the most controversial figures in certain circles of America because of his intractability on the Global Warming Crisis Issue.

The Republican Party, long before any but bought-off scientists said word one on global warming, decried the whole thing a myth created in some liberal agenda book or manifested by what some called "religious-environmentalism".

The study I mention are not bought-off scientists, as far my informational sources provide, but rather simply dissenting scientists from the group of scientists that initially presented the whole concept.

In the campaign for The White House this year (2008) each campaign had the same line on global warming:

“We need to do something about global climate change.”

The critical thing to know is that the vocal conservatives, prior to the RNC speech of John McCain where he directly addressed global warming, there was a constant smearing and mocking attitude of people who wanted to speak out on this issue of climate change. Then all of sudden they just stopped talking about it and mocking anyone about that. Not one more mention of those ‘crazy global-warming kooks,’ for quite a long time.

I tend to believe they and most outspoken-Republicans did was actually read what I read when it came out like 8 years ago: "The Kyoto Treaty."

Another strange hush-factor that struck the Limited-Conservatives, during the previous national campaign is the whole immigration issue.

That’s another issue entirely but both candidates and the right-wing media just completely shut their traps on that issue, almost entirely to date.

The only reason it’s significant to bring up is that these loons that call others ‘Enviro-Nazis’ also bashed anyone who didn’t want to ‘kick the bums out of my country.’ They did this ten-fold on John McCain when he sought some kind of solution oriented legislation on the issue. Now they feel better about starting those old lines up again but nobody seems to want to actually do anything about it over in what I hear from Republican-land.

It is like a willingness to shove your head in the sand as far it will go. Then leave it there for the course of an entire campaign.

Evidence that the Republican Party is willing to engage in not only ‘Politi-science’ tactics but to a willing blindness to anything that is a serious issue in the nation.

They just want to talk about homosexuality or atheism while we go broke and choke to death.

Eric Lightborn
http://americapress.wordpress.com
December 22nd 2008