Roger, as you may surmise, I've had high-level scientists (most of your readers would recognize their names) tell me, highly confidentially, they are afraid to accurately state the results of their research for fear of losing their jobs. It is unbelievable that this situation could develop in America ("land of the free and home of the brave"). But, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
The thought has occurred to me that one of the reasons so many 'leaders' in contemporary American science behave in a hysterical manner is to create a diversion from intellectual, or even traditional, corruption in which they are participating or turning a blind eye toward. In immortal words of Dr. Raymond Stantz,"I've worked in the private sector, they expect results!" https://youtu.be/RjzC1Dgh17A?si=eHUcX662oeXRAaYZ&t=12
If I were in charge of DOGE, I would seriously entertain the idea of shutting down NSF for 2-3 years while greatly increasing the business tax credit for R&D. As President Eisenhower presciently warned, the domination of science by government is highly undesirable ( "Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.”). Let's face it, it was Musk's entrepreneurship, not NSF, that funded the revolution in the space industry in the form of reusable rockets. Nor did a NSF scientist create the iPhone.
I can present many essays expressing concern about the rate of innovation in the United States (ie, https://hbr.org/2019/11/why-the-u-s-innovation-ecosystem-is-slowing-down ). I don't see NSF funding scientists with strong concerns about the global warming 'consensus.' U.S. weather science is in crisis as some types of forecasting/warnings have gotten less accurate the past 15 yearsI. Some of the research funded by NSF and/or NOAA is just silly -- meanwhile meteorology in the USA is 30 years behind the Europeans ( https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-unnecessary-decline-of-us-numerical.html ). It shouldn't have to fall to an attorney (RFK, Jr.) to passionately argue childrens' vaccines should be required to undergo double-blind testing, it is just common sense (I realize medical is funded differently than NSF).
Even worse, there is a "reproducibility" crisis in America science where many or even most published results cannot be reproduced by disinterested third parties....one of the very tenets of science.
I don't see how any of this will be repaired short of a major shock to the system.
The NSF staff will not only have PhD's but also practitioners making decisions. I believe one of the reasons for the crisis in meteorological modeling is there are literally zero practitioners making decisions pertaining to what end products should look like and what their capabilities should be.
I have many more thoughts on the future of science but that is enough for today.
" ... the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine need to examine how scientists may have contributed to the polarization of the use of science. Although scientists must never shirk their duty to provide the foundation of evidence that can guide policy decisions and to defend science and scientists from political interference, they must avoid the tendency to imply that science dictates policy. It is up to elected officials to determine policy based on the outcomes desired by their constituents. It is the role of science to inform these decision-makers as to whether those desired outcomes are likely to result from the policies being enacted."
Roger, despite some faint hints of contrition I predict that the leaders of the science community are not going to fix any of the problems you describe, for two reasons.
First, they still think the problem is their PR strategy. They spent the last 20+ years thinking that all they needed were better communication skills. Then they lavished awards on the Manns and Oreskis and Hotezes of the world for being effective “communicators”. It probably never occurred to them that becoming increasingly effective at expressing arrogance and contempt was not what the situation demands.
Second, as you noted, there are now no resources internal to the science establishment on which they can draw to fix the problems, because they have driven out anyone who at one time might have been able to help. On just about every university campus (and likewise at any meeting of science journalists or NAS bureaucrats) when a group of people are gathered and the talk turns to politics it is immediately assumed that everyone within earshot is on the left and they all share the same anti-conservative opinions. It doesn’t occur to anyone that there might be a diversity of viewpoints present, because there probably isn’t. So there is no one left to articulate alternative opinions or bring forward all the evidence they have overlooked.
Instead of changing, the science grandees will likely go into anthropologist mode. They’ll gather teams of social scientists, all drawn from inside the bubble, to put on their safari gear and go find some deplorables to interview. They’ll make a show of being interested in their opinions before planning the next round of condescending lectures. They might as well save themselves the effort, no one is listening to them anymore.
Every facet of American life needs to change, and we need to get back to common sense where people are able to distinguish the difference between facts, beliefs, and opinions. We are living in a society today where opinions and beliefs are stated as factual, and presumed to be factual by so many, with no critical thinking. Our education system needs a massive overhaul.
Scientific societies and publishers of scientific research should not become advocates of policy. If they do, they have sold the traditional Honest Broker perception of science with the public for pennies. Having staked a position, they will always have a thumb on the scale, a position to defend (even if indefensible). We have been warned of this for decades. No wonder the reputation of science has been severely degraded.
My apologies for being late to class. The dog ate my homework.
“The first priority of those who lead important institutions of science must be to reestablish a spirit of public service, recognizing that we serve the public, we do not lead the public. That will mean leadership that works to ensure that every American can see themselves benefitting from the work of the scientific community.”
Well said, sir. Thank you. We have to remember that unanimity of views in America is never an option, but acting together is imperative. As engineers and scientists, our leadership comes in the form of sane and respectful discussion, not the crap Ms. Helmuth upholds. We have to behave like civilized persons and our disagreements must lead to learning and better understanding, not the rancor and finger-pointing that has become commonplace. But that leadership must start with us!
Personally, I pray that Mr. Trump can put aside our political strife and focus on making the country a better place to live. He would be wise to build his presidency around energy - it's importance to our economy, its importance to world security, and its importance for humanity to thrive. Perhaps two years of unprecedented growth, coupled with the realization that climate is not the catastrophe some would us believe, might temper the conversation. Yeah…right. And I might get a date tonight with Jenifer Aniston.
I’ve said this before, and it bears repeating (but with a slight modification): The breakdown of scientific culture in our day is not a function of our having forgotten how to agree with each other but of our having forgotten how to disagree constructively. That is where we must begin.
Climate change has been framed as an issue in which a specific policy action - reducing greenhosue emissions - is essentially "dictated" by science. If you aren't onboard with this policy response you must be "anti-science." Trump and many other Repubicans are portrayed in these terms.
Let's apply some science to this framing. That means putting forth a hypothesis and then testing it with data. Let's try a hypothesis: Republicans are "anti-science" because of their opposition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the production and use of fossil fuels.
[Let me say at the start I am a climate scientist. I am strongly of the view, as a scientist, based on all the data I have seen and published, that humans are causing climate change and climate change presents a serious, pervasive and persistent risk through the impacts it has caused and is likely to cause in future. As a citizen/human, I am of the view that we (global society) should reduce greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly and extensively as we can manage.]
As I noted in THB's 2024 Election Special comments, here are some data points:
1) While the Biden-Harris Administration has been in office, the US has remained the largest producer of oil and gas of any country in history, with oil production growing continually over 2021 through 2023. This growth also occurred during 2013 through 2015, in Barack Obama’s second term.
2) While the Biden-Harris Administration has been in office, US gas production has grown and the US has remained the world’s top producer of gas. The US surpassed Russia to become the world’s largest gas producer in 2011, while Barack Obama was in the White House. US gas production extended that lead and continued that growth through the Obama, Trump and Biden Administrations.
3) Use of coal for electrical power in the US has been in nearly-continual decline since 2007 (George W. Bush Admin). The only time coal’s decline has reversed (temporarily) has been during the Obama and Biden administrations. Coal use declined as much, if not more, under Trump than under Obama or Biden.
4) US CO2 emissions peaked in 2007 (G.W. Bush Admin) and have been in near-continual decline through the Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden administrations.
5) We can also look at the Mauna Loa CO2 (concentration, not emissions) data. It's been in continual increase since it was started by Scripps' Dave Keeling during the Eisnhower Administration. Of course that's global, not US.
So, given those data, who's "anti-science?" Given those data, can we say Trump (or Republicans more broadly) are any more or less "pro" or "anti" science than Obama, Biden or Democrats broadly?
Having the US in the Paris Agreement is portrayed by many as essential. But is Trump is really a "planet wrecker" as newspapers like the Guardian have described him? If so, then so are Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama and Biden.
Null hypothesis: which party is in power in the US has little influence on emissions or climate change. Those data, to me, provide no basis for rejecting the null hypothesis.
good read and very true... the biggest problem is the subjugation of science by politics and controlled by funding... the biggest hotbed of this is Climate change as its very clear that its spun up to be an emergency by the need to keep the funding bucket full. Its clear that Trump is going to put a stop to this. At the very least its time to ensure that both sides of the argument get reviewed before future and more realistic policies are re-set.
Are these "scientist" still worthy of the title scientists? They'll take my tax money but still hold me in contempt? As you have pointed out, the science community in many sectors, have allowed politicians and non scientists to deliver a distorted message fro the scenic community.
If these moral giants are such moral people, no doubt they will refuse to take any monies from a Republican government. Karma is a bit*h and the reckoning will soon come to this condescending self righteous paragons of virtue. What will they do?
I have a degree, in General 'studies, does that count? I functioned at one of the highest levels in one of the most intelligence demanding jobs in the world. Air Traffic controller before all the digital stuff came out. I taught my trade at a local college. I know enough to go to the unbiased sources for my science knowledge. There are more than a few. I avoid all science publications. i will fight to take all govenrment funds away from these haters. what I see are over educated elites who believe they are untouchable and unable to function in the parts of society that science holds no sway.
Like many thinking Americans, I am tired of the self righteous trying to shove their "religion" down my throat. If it is war they want, it is what they will get and in the end, they will loose. Because they don't understand the world out side science and that is where the battle is won or lost.
I loved the movies and TV shows, Lessons in Chemistry, and Hidden Figures. It seems the scientific community is not much changed over the years. But shows like these give one confidence the dinosaurs will be gone and real scientists interested in science and not spreading their morality will be in charge. Not that scientist shouldn't be allowed to spread their morality. Just don't do it on my dime.
And if this sounds radical, it came about because of the last years of politics which abandoned the independent and majority citizens of this country in favor of "science" that defends mutilating children, bad policy and incalculable harm to our children from bad science on viruses, and allowing Kerry and Gore to be your knights on white steeds. The scientist that wanted them, can go down with their sinking ships. Good riddance.
(I do apologize for the attitude, but I have had enough. No one is a greater harm to society than an "educated elite in power who believes only they know what is good for all of us. there are way to many of them)
Roger, you do realize that YOU were the one that decided to go 'off-topic' don't you? Maybe you should apologize for dropping political commentary into a scientifically oriented discussion?
I’ve been discussing politics on this site since the start and will continue to do so — it is about science, policy, and politics, always has been.
While I welcome your participation and support, if you are not happy with what you encounter here, drop me an email and I’ll issue you a refund. Thanks.
"Every day I could point you to social media comments by leading and celebrated scientists that make Helmuth’s diatribe look tame"
This isn't a comment about spelling or grammar. It is an observation that you seem to have forgotten already who you voted for, and why (I'll remind you - the 'who' was Harris, and the 'why' was "character"). I'm not sure why you are castigating all these folks for 'wrong-think', when it seems to me you are guilty of the same sin, although certainly not to the same degree
Dr. Martin Luther King, in his great "I have a dream" speech said he dreamed of a time when his grandchildren would be judged by the character of their hearts rather than the color of their skin. If you voted for Harris, you were voting for a policy where people are EXPLICITLY judged by the color of their skin rather than the character of their hearts. If that is what you refer to as "character" and you think that is superior to Trump's, then you may want to spend some time recalibrating your instrumentation :)
If your subscription demographics are similar to current American demographics, then you have just demonstrated that your thinking is at odds with the majority of your hard-working non-woke audience (i.e. the people that pay your wages). I am a subscriber because I think you do good science and have an actual, functioning BS detector - a rare commodity among climate scientists these days. I really don't care about your politics, and I would really have been much happier if you hadn't decided to lecture us all on your political views. Please stick to climate science, where you have quite clearly demonstrated your expertise and clarity.
This is Roger’s place. Do you really think it’s appropriate to be making demands of him? Are you really so thin-skinned that you can’t handle reading views that differ from your own? Is it just possible that your views might be wrong on occasion? Have some respect.
Respect goes both ways. I dislike being preached to by someone who, while clearly an expert in his field, is totally off base in areas he knows nothing about. Being told that 'character' was the discriminator between someone who has NO (as in non-existent) character and Trump, especially after more than half the country most decidedly rejected that premise.
Thin-skinned? I'm a retired PhD engineer/researcher, so I know a little bit about research and science. I've been dismissed, told I'm basically a Cro-Magnon right-wing conspiracy theorist unable to understand the new "woke" world, told I had to get the 15th Covid vaccine shot and wear masks outside, told that ivermectin was ineffective and/or dangerous, told that I had to 'respect everyone's pronouns', told that being a 'woman' is undefined and undefinable. You're damned right I'm "thin skinned"!
I'll ask everyone to stay on topic and to exchange emails if you'd like to argue about politics. The other thread is where people are free to continue discussing the election.
I don't want to argue politics. But I do want to make a point. (And before I make that point, I want to point out that I never voted for Trump...or Biden...or Harris.) (There was always a better candidate on the ballot for President. ;-)).
But the point I wanted to make was to agree with Jason. This is Roger's Substack account. If anyone thinks it's not worth the money, they should simply stop subscribing. Unlike Mad Magazine, Roger (I think! ;-)) is not going to shoot a dog if you stop subscribing:
"... this episode reflects how intense partisanship, often accompanied by intolerance and vitriol, have become normalized in areas of science that are especially close to policy and politics ..."
.
The scientific method - a search for truth which becomes less and less credible when accompanied by intolerance and vitriol (um, remember the Catholic hierarchy applying those items to Galileo Galilei's hypothesis re the earth-sun relationship) - requires that hypotheses be tested by openly divulged measurements, and that only superior evidence may displace earlier conclusions about characteristics in question. Louder rhetoric does not qualify as superior evidence, thank you.
Roger, as you may surmise, I've had high-level scientists (most of your readers would recognize their names) tell me, highly confidentially, they are afraid to accurately state the results of their research for fear of losing their jobs. It is unbelievable that this situation could develop in America ("land of the free and home of the brave"). But, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
The thought has occurred to me that one of the reasons so many 'leaders' in contemporary American science behave in a hysterical manner is to create a diversion from intellectual, or even traditional, corruption in which they are participating or turning a blind eye toward. In immortal words of Dr. Raymond Stantz,"I've worked in the private sector, they expect results!" https://youtu.be/RjzC1Dgh17A?si=eHUcX662oeXRAaYZ&t=12
If I were in charge of DOGE, I would seriously entertain the idea of shutting down NSF for 2-3 years while greatly increasing the business tax credit for R&D. As President Eisenhower presciently warned, the domination of science by government is highly undesirable ( "Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.”). Let's face it, it was Musk's entrepreneurship, not NSF, that funded the revolution in the space industry in the form of reusable rockets. Nor did a NSF scientist create the iPhone.
I can present many essays expressing concern about the rate of innovation in the United States (ie, https://hbr.org/2019/11/why-the-u-s-innovation-ecosystem-is-slowing-down ). I don't see NSF funding scientists with strong concerns about the global warming 'consensus.' U.S. weather science is in crisis as some types of forecasting/warnings have gotten less accurate the past 15 yearsI. Some of the research funded by NSF and/or NOAA is just silly -- meanwhile meteorology in the USA is 30 years behind the Europeans ( https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-unnecessary-decline-of-us-numerical.html ). It shouldn't have to fall to an attorney (RFK, Jr.) to passionately argue childrens' vaccines should be required to undergo double-blind testing, it is just common sense (I realize medical is funded differently than NSF).
Even worse, there is a "reproducibility" crisis in America science where many or even most published results cannot be reproduced by disinterested third parties....one of the very tenets of science.
I don't see how any of this will be repaired short of a major shock to the system.
When the reformed NSF is reopened, its new building will be far from the Beltway (Austin? Sillicon Valley?). See more on the topic of dispersing the government: https://www.mikesmithenterprisesblog.com/2024/11/to-president-elect-trump-and-elon-musk.html
The NSF staff will not only have PhD's but also practitioners making decisions. I believe one of the reasons for the crisis in meteorological modeling is there are literally zero practitioners making decisions pertaining to what end products should look like and what their capabilities should be.
I have many more thoughts on the future of science but that is enough for today.
Credit where credit is due. Marcia McNutt's commentary in this week's Science.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adu4907?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_content=alert&utm_campaign=SCIeToc&et_rid=34853806&et_cid=5431107
" ... the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine need to examine how scientists may have contributed to the polarization of the use of science. Although scientists must never shirk their duty to provide the foundation of evidence that can guide policy decisions and to defend science and scientists from political interference, they must avoid the tendency to imply that science dictates policy. It is up to elected officials to determine policy based on the outcomes desired by their constituents. It is the role of science to inform these decision-makers as to whether those desired outcomes are likely to result from the policies being enacted."
Roger, despite some faint hints of contrition I predict that the leaders of the science community are not going to fix any of the problems you describe, for two reasons.
First, they still think the problem is their PR strategy. They spent the last 20+ years thinking that all they needed were better communication skills. Then they lavished awards on the Manns and Oreskis and Hotezes of the world for being effective “communicators”. It probably never occurred to them that becoming increasingly effective at expressing arrogance and contempt was not what the situation demands.
Second, as you noted, there are now no resources internal to the science establishment on which they can draw to fix the problems, because they have driven out anyone who at one time might have been able to help. On just about every university campus (and likewise at any meeting of science journalists or NAS bureaucrats) when a group of people are gathered and the talk turns to politics it is immediately assumed that everyone within earshot is on the left and they all share the same anti-conservative opinions. It doesn’t occur to anyone that there might be a diversity of viewpoints present, because there probably isn’t. So there is no one left to articulate alternative opinions or bring forward all the evidence they have overlooked.
Instead of changing, the science grandees will likely go into anthropologist mode. They’ll gather teams of social scientists, all drawn from inside the bubble, to put on their safari gear and go find some deplorables to interview. They’ll make a show of being interested in their opinions before planning the next round of condescending lectures. They might as well save themselves the effort, no one is listening to them anymore.
Every facet of American life needs to change, and we need to get back to common sense where people are able to distinguish the difference between facts, beliefs, and opinions. We are living in a society today where opinions and beliefs are stated as factual, and presumed to be factual by so many, with no critical thinking. Our education system needs a massive overhaul.
Scientific societies and publishers of scientific research should not become advocates of policy. If they do, they have sold the traditional Honest Broker perception of science with the public for pennies. Having staked a position, they will always have a thumb on the scale, a position to defend (even if indefensible). We have been warned of this for decades. No wonder the reputation of science has been severely degraded.
My apologies for being late to class. The dog ate my homework.
“The first priority of those who lead important institutions of science must be to reestablish a spirit of public service, recognizing that we serve the public, we do not lead the public. That will mean leadership that works to ensure that every American can see themselves benefitting from the work of the scientific community.”
Well said, sir. Thank you. We have to remember that unanimity of views in America is never an option, but acting together is imperative. As engineers and scientists, our leadership comes in the form of sane and respectful discussion, not the crap Ms. Helmuth upholds. We have to behave like civilized persons and our disagreements must lead to learning and better understanding, not the rancor and finger-pointing that has become commonplace. But that leadership must start with us!
Personally, I pray that Mr. Trump can put aside our political strife and focus on making the country a better place to live. He would be wise to build his presidency around energy - it's importance to our economy, its importance to world security, and its importance for humanity to thrive. Perhaps two years of unprecedented growth, coupled with the realization that climate is not the catastrophe some would us believe, might temper the conversation. Yeah…right. And I might get a date tonight with Jenifer Aniston.
I’ve said this before, and it bears repeating (but with a slight modification): The breakdown of scientific culture in our day is not a function of our having forgotten how to agree with each other but of our having forgotten how to disagree constructively. That is where we must begin.
Roger
It's great to see that " normal service has been resumed" as they used to say in the UK during the 70s when your TV broadcast had a wobble!
Science is a perpetual pursuit of truth. Those who claim to know it are no longer engaged in science.
Climate change has been framed as an issue in which a specific policy action - reducing greenhosue emissions - is essentially "dictated" by science. If you aren't onboard with this policy response you must be "anti-science." Trump and many other Repubicans are portrayed in these terms.
Let's apply some science to this framing. That means putting forth a hypothesis and then testing it with data. Let's try a hypothesis: Republicans are "anti-science" because of their opposition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the production and use of fossil fuels.
[Let me say at the start I am a climate scientist. I am strongly of the view, as a scientist, based on all the data I have seen and published, that humans are causing climate change and climate change presents a serious, pervasive and persistent risk through the impacts it has caused and is likely to cause in future. As a citizen/human, I am of the view that we (global society) should reduce greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly and extensively as we can manage.]
As I noted in THB's 2024 Election Special comments, here are some data points:
1) While the Biden-Harris Administration has been in office, the US has remained the largest producer of oil and gas of any country in history, with oil production growing continually over 2021 through 2023. This growth also occurred during 2013 through 2015, in Barack Obama’s second term.
2) While the Biden-Harris Administration has been in office, US gas production has grown and the US has remained the world’s top producer of gas. The US surpassed Russia to become the world’s largest gas producer in 2011, while Barack Obama was in the White House. US gas production extended that lead and continued that growth through the Obama, Trump and Biden Administrations.
3) Use of coal for electrical power in the US has been in nearly-continual decline since 2007 (George W. Bush Admin). The only time coal’s decline has reversed (temporarily) has been during the Obama and Biden administrations. Coal use declined as much, if not more, under Trump than under Obama or Biden.
4) US CO2 emissions peaked in 2007 (G.W. Bush Admin) and have been in near-continual decline through the Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden administrations.
5) We can also look at the Mauna Loa CO2 (concentration, not emissions) data. It's been in continual increase since it was started by Scripps' Dave Keeling during the Eisnhower Administration. Of course that's global, not US.
So, given those data, who's "anti-science?" Given those data, can we say Trump (or Republicans more broadly) are any more or less "pro" or "anti" science than Obama, Biden or Democrats broadly?
Having the US in the Paris Agreement is portrayed by many as essential. But is Trump is really a "planet wrecker" as newspapers like the Guardian have described him? If so, then so are Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama and Biden.
Null hypothesis: which party is in power in the US has little influence on emissions or climate change. Those data, to me, provide no basis for rejecting the null hypothesis.
good read and very true... the biggest problem is the subjugation of science by politics and controlled by funding... the biggest hotbed of this is Climate change as its very clear that its spun up to be an emergency by the need to keep the funding bucket full. Its clear that Trump is going to put a stop to this. At the very least its time to ensure that both sides of the argument get reviewed before future and more realistic policies are re-set.
I find this site and it's commentators fascinating, full of wisdom and knowledge.
Thanks to all.
Amen!!!
Are these "scientist" still worthy of the title scientists? They'll take my tax money but still hold me in contempt? As you have pointed out, the science community in many sectors, have allowed politicians and non scientists to deliver a distorted message fro the scenic community.
If these moral giants are such moral people, no doubt they will refuse to take any monies from a Republican government. Karma is a bit*h and the reckoning will soon come to this condescending self righteous paragons of virtue. What will they do?
I have a degree, in General 'studies, does that count? I functioned at one of the highest levels in one of the most intelligence demanding jobs in the world. Air Traffic controller before all the digital stuff came out. I taught my trade at a local college. I know enough to go to the unbiased sources for my science knowledge. There are more than a few. I avoid all science publications. i will fight to take all govenrment funds away from these haters. what I see are over educated elites who believe they are untouchable and unable to function in the parts of society that science holds no sway.
Like many thinking Americans, I am tired of the self righteous trying to shove their "religion" down my throat. If it is war they want, it is what they will get and in the end, they will loose. Because they don't understand the world out side science and that is where the battle is won or lost.
I loved the movies and TV shows, Lessons in Chemistry, and Hidden Figures. It seems the scientific community is not much changed over the years. But shows like these give one confidence the dinosaurs will be gone and real scientists interested in science and not spreading their morality will be in charge. Not that scientist shouldn't be allowed to spread their morality. Just don't do it on my dime.
And if this sounds radical, it came about because of the last years of politics which abandoned the independent and majority citizens of this country in favor of "science" that defends mutilating children, bad policy and incalculable harm to our children from bad science on viruses, and allowing Kerry and Gore to be your knights on white steeds. The scientist that wanted them, can go down with their sinking ships. Good riddance.
(I do apologize for the attitude, but I have had enough. No one is a greater harm to society than an "educated elite in power who believes only they know what is good for all of us. there are way to many of them)
I am a scientist... but I cannot explain why you are so wrong as its "just too technical".. just joking :-)
A scientist with humor. What a great combination.
Actually... I am a manufacturing engineer and that for sure requires a sense of humor.
Roger, you do realize that YOU were the one that decided to go 'off-topic' don't you? Maybe you should apologize for dropping political commentary into a scientifically oriented discussion?
Really??!
Frank,
I’ve been discussing politics on this site since the start and will continue to do so — it is about science, policy, and politics, always has been.
While I welcome your participation and support, if you are not happy with what you encounter here, drop me an email and I’ll issue you a refund. Thanks.
and keep it up, please!
Much better.
No problem - you can keep the change
Well said. Hopefully the message gets through.
"Every day I could point you to social media comments by leading and celebrated scientists that make Helmuth’s diatribe look tame"
This isn't a comment about spelling or grammar. It is an observation that you seem to have forgotten already who you voted for, and why (I'll remind you - the 'who' was Harris, and the 'why' was "character"). I'm not sure why you are castigating all these folks for 'wrong-think', when it seems to me you are guilty of the same sin, although certainly not to the same degree
Dr. Martin Luther King, in his great "I have a dream" speech said he dreamed of a time when his grandchildren would be judged by the character of their hearts rather than the color of their skin. If you voted for Harris, you were voting for a policy where people are EXPLICITLY judged by the color of their skin rather than the character of their hearts. If that is what you refer to as "character" and you think that is superior to Trump's, then you may want to spend some time recalibrating your instrumentation :)
If your subscription demographics are similar to current American demographics, then you have just demonstrated that your thinking is at odds with the majority of your hard-working non-woke audience (i.e. the people that pay your wages). I am a subscriber because I think you do good science and have an actual, functioning BS detector - a rare commodity among climate scientists these days. I really don't care about your politics, and I would really have been much happier if you hadn't decided to lecture us all on your political views. Please stick to climate science, where you have quite clearly demonstrated your expertise and clarity.
This is Roger’s place. Do you really think it’s appropriate to be making demands of him? Are you really so thin-skinned that you can’t handle reading views that differ from your own? Is it just possible that your views might be wrong on occasion? Have some respect.
Respect goes both ways. I dislike being preached to by someone who, while clearly an expert in his field, is totally off base in areas he knows nothing about. Being told that 'character' was the discriminator between someone who has NO (as in non-existent) character and Trump, especially after more than half the country most decidedly rejected that premise.
Thin-skinned? I'm a retired PhD engineer/researcher, so I know a little bit about research and science. I've been dismissed, told I'm basically a Cro-Magnon right-wing conspiracy theorist unable to understand the new "woke" world, told I had to get the 15th Covid vaccine shot and wear masks outside, told that ivermectin was ineffective and/or dangerous, told that I had to 'respect everyone's pronouns', told that being a 'woman' is undefined and undefinable. You're damned right I'm "thin skinned"!
I'll ask everyone to stay on topic and to exchange emails if you'd like to argue about politics. The other thread is where people are free to continue discussing the election.
This post is about how science must change
Thanks!
I don't want to argue politics. But I do want to make a point. (And before I make that point, I want to point out that I never voted for Trump...or Biden...or Harris.) (There was always a better candidate on the ballot for President. ;-)).
But the point I wanted to make was to agree with Jason. This is Roger's Substack account. If anyone thinks it's not worth the money, they should simply stop subscribing. Unlike Mad Magazine, Roger (I think! ;-)) is not going to shoot a dog if you stop subscribing:
https://theposterdepot.com/products/zsgnnationlampooncovermn7051101
"... this episode reflects how intense partisanship, often accompanied by intolerance and vitriol, have become normalized in areas of science that are especially close to policy and politics ..."
.
The scientific method - a search for truth which becomes less and less credible when accompanied by intolerance and vitriol (um, remember the Catholic hierarchy applying those items to Galileo Galilei's hypothesis re the earth-sun relationship) - requires that hypotheses be tested by openly divulged measurements, and that only superior evidence may displace earlier conclusions about characteristics in question. Louder rhetoric does not qualify as superior evidence, thank you.