2
2
0
Scientific American magazine decries the new president's stance on many important scientific issues such as vaccinations and climate change.
"Scientists are hoarding data on global temperatures, in case President-elect Donald Trump tries to wipe it off government Web sites or block public access to it. Ahead of Trump’s inauguration the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) has released stricter guidelines to protect scientists from government interference, and for many it feels like that safety net could not have come soon enough."
"Scientists are hoarding data on global temperatures, in case President-elect Donald Trump tries to wipe it off government Web sites or block public access to it. Ahead of Trump’s inauguration the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) has released stricter guidelines to protect scientists from government interference, and for many it feels like that safety net could not have come soon enough."
Trump's 5 Most "Anti-Science" Moves
Posted from scientificamerican.com
Science
Office of the President (POTUS)
Donald Trump
Climate Change
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
7
7
0
So I am kind of curious because I watched on CSPAN a Democrat grill the new incomming Secretary of Education on what he called "Crap Science". I would like to know what exactly is "Crap Science" and why the Democrats are so afraid of it because to me it really looks like the Democrats want a specific idealogy taught K-12. I am all for presenting all sides of an argument and encouraging critical thinking skills but it seems the Democrats favor indoctrination more vs critical thinking. I think this needs to change. Nothing wrong with presenting a Scientific Argument presenting the various sides to it and saying this one side is where society is now because of the preponderence of the evidence. To exclude specific sides of the argument because you do not agree with them I think is wrong and the wrong way to teach students inhibts creative thinking and leads to a George Orwell 1984 type world.
(7)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Critical thinking get goes against the Democrats thinking of victimology. They only want one side a story given. They belive that if told enough times a lie will become even the truth and the truth a lie. We have seen all of this play out since President Trump was elected. The Left media, celebrities, community leaders that have broken ranks and even suggested that they give DJT a chance are immediately cyber bullies through un-social media, so reamed at and threatened. This is why the Democrats have lost in the last few elections. People have seen that the so-called socialist progressive programs the left champions don't work but listen to any lefty and they think that Thier constituents can't even find the government ID office but can sure as hell find the welfare office.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
1stLt Nick S - The Laws of Thermodynamics:
- The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system.
- The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases.
- The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.
Especially the third law dispute "global warming"
- The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system.
- The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases.
- The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.
Especially the third law dispute "global warming"
(0)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
OK so take global warming. Let's assume for a moment that correlation AND causation have been proven incontrovertibly between human-produced CO2 and 100% of the very recent warming trends we have seen. At this point, many liberals leap to the notion that we need government intervention to stop or slow CO2 production. Why? There has not been an evaluation of the positive effects of higher CO2 on plant growth worldwide. These positive effects have not been integrated with positive and negative effects of a warmer Earth. Effect minimization efforts (e.g., seawalls) have not been compared against output reduction efforts in a cost-benefit analysis. This is one example of indoctrination or only showing one side--pretending we KNOW that higher CO2 is SO bad that it justifies seriously harming our economy. And selling that pretense to people as if it were incontrovertible.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I keep coming back to the phrase I use repeatedly- teachers should educate not indoctrinate. I feel it is their job to present ALL of the facts and the students to formulate their own opinions. IMO that instills free and out of the box thinking. Don't stifle a young mind- don't attempt to program their minds to the teacher'said own personal agenda. True science needs to stay in the classroom and opinions need to stay out of there.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
It was smart of Scientific American to allow Andrea Marks, their editorial intern, to publish this hogwash. As an editorial, it doesn't need to concern itself with any actual policy moves. As an intern, she is an easy patsy. The editorial focuses on who Trump appointed to positions, their LinkedIn accounts, and Trump meeting with BOTH sides of the argument (though the article only mentions one side) on vaccines and climate change. BTW, vaccines are one of the best discoveries for human-kind ever (Thesis). But to meet with a critic, to understand the alternative perspective (Anti-thesis), is exactly what a scientist would do, to establish a better understanding of the whole (Synthesis - new Thesis). Some vaccines cause harmful effects to a very minute percentage of those who take them. The benefits outweigh those drawbacks by over 1,000 to 1.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google