I do concern myself about including statements which distract people from the more important points I’m trying to make. But in this case, the separation of science and government is the point.

Conflict in science is typically (not always, but typically) a bit more civil than conflict in politics. It would seem a number of people in this crowd prefer to leave the conflicts in politics behind when they are here in the science realm.

That is understandable. If you attempt to discuss the impact of politics on science you have the problem that people in science crowds will naturally have political conflicts among themselves. There is a preference to leave those conflicts aside by not mentioning them when mingling in science forums and other science discussions and interactions. However, there are times, and this time in history is one of them, when politics invades the realm of science.

If we stick to supportable facts and away from political philosophies, we ought to be able to discuss our common goal, that of promoting the importance of the scientific process. If you dispute a fact, say so. Provide the evidence. Look at the other’s evidence. Rather than a blanket taboo on any discussion of politics or religion, there’s no reason we can’t discriminate between relative and irrelevant discussion as far as science is concerned.

I repeat my point, scientists should at least be supporting the credibility and importance of science, regardless of their political positions. And I add, not every single mention of something with a political tie needs to be taboo. If your government is actively promoting anti-science positions, it can’t be ignored.

Nuclear power managed properly may be subject to overrated risk evaluations, but one must consider the consequences of spreading nuclear technology and improperly managed nuclear power plants, especially in third world countries. The issues are not as clear as you imply.

In addition, what makes a particular environmental position leftist? WPPSS, aka Whoops, attempted to build 5 nuclear power plants in WA state, 2 of which were mothballed at a cost of billions of wasted dollars. It was due to mismanagement and economics, not environmental concerns. Only one plant was ever completed.

I believe strongly that as scientists and engineers, we have not on a right to push back when politicians blur these lines. I believe we have a *responsibility* to do so. If we don’t, who will do it? If it isn’t done, we might as well be back in the Dark Ages.

Science has already been politicized. It’s up to scientists to inform and educate. And if that means getting political about it, then so be it.

Until then, they’re just another leftist propaganda group like the “Union of Concerned Scientists”

Perhaps there can be some debunking of his ideas and the scientists that he cites, (yes, they do exist) instead of the ad hominems (sp?).

Personally, I get tired of the headlines reading “Warmest year in a Millenium” only to be followed by “Still not as warm as 1932″ or some more information on the effect of the sun on the earth or perhaps some more data than just the last 10 years. There is a lot of money in having global warming, and people just get entrenched. I distinctly remember in the 1970s talking about the oncoming Ice Age.

Not only that but Gore suggested that cigarette smoking is a significant factor in global warming, not to mention cow farts. You don’t think statements like that make degreed people like me, with lots of letters after my name, think that science doesn’t know what it is talking about, or at least some of them?

Like others have mentioned, I love BAs attempt to enlighten the world on astronomy. Sometimes he makes me scratch my head though. But then again, I still have to convince my wife that I’m not nuts.

You’re fighting silly internet trolls? Well that explains a lot of what’s been going on here lately. Should I place that in the “Hasty Generaization Fallacy” or the “Unrepresetative Sample Fallacy”.

skeptigirl said:
>>>Which brings me to my second point, (my political hat is on),

You should be careful there, my dear. Political hats (as can be seen here and all over the interwebs) tend to snuff out actual thinking.

—–

Well der! You’ve got a knack for explaining the obvious or something?

I’m still confuzed about the whole thing, but I doubt this groupie thing will last long, that’s just a hypothosys (SP?!?!?) But who knows, I could be wrong. *shrugga-fies*