It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Next Level BS #23: Shut Up Scientists, Go Home, You're Not Wanted

page: 2
60
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

Let's get real here.

The "independent scientists" you refer to on the EPA's Science Advisory Board multiple times in the video are not independent at all.

Their research is funded primarily by environmental advocacy groups. They use the results of this "research" as a reference when functioning on the EPA's Science Advisory Board, a government agency that is supposed to be scientifically objective and unbiased. It has not been for years, because in our modern times you can buy science.

The bill is attempting to level the dirty playing field. It's like saying "If you can have your paid experts make up the 'science', why can't we have our paid experts make up some 'science' too?"

The naivety and ridiculousness of this NLBS is apparent within the first 1:30 when you state "The bill attacks the EPA's Science Advisory Board, which is composed of the BEST independent scientists." Did that come from an 8th grader's book report on the purity of the EPA? My goodness, there are several screws loose here. The BEST according to whom? Independent? They get paid by someone, don't they? The bill "attacks" them? It attempts to even the non-science propaganda machine going on in the EPA. Your wording betrays your predisposed conclusions and agenda.

The bias in this video is appalling, particularly because it is operating under the ruse of exposing BS while heaping us all hip-deep in BS. I have a shovel, but I'm gonna need a backhoe for this one.

But thanks for the episode! I still enjoy listening.

edit on 11/25/2014 by InTheFlesh1980 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

I mean complex as in the vast majority of non-bacterial life. And, you can take it for what it's worth, but I do care - I hope nothing more then that I am wrong. Biodiversity on this planet has been in a complete free fall for over two hundred years - we depend upon that biodiversity for our species survival, and the decline of biodiversity on this planet has not slowed down, nor is there any evidence that it will slow down.

We are bound to the same fundamental rules as all life on this planet. There have been numerous species on this planet that have consumed themselves to death, we are no different. Of course, life will go on, even without a human presence. It's a big universe, and it is my belief, life is another force of nature: When the conditions are met, it arises, when the conditions are no longer maintainable, life will cease, but conditions are constantly evolving in our universe.

Even after our planet is consumed by the sun, there will be potential for life to bloom in our very own solar system.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheFlesh1980
The bias in this video is appalling, particularly because it is operating under the ruse of exposing BS while heaping us all hip-deep in BS. I have a shovel, but I'm gonna need a backhoe for this one.

We've looked through the thousands of scientists that serve on the dozens of panels of the EPA's review board. A great deal are indeed independent scientists with excellent reputations for following science, not the funding.

Yes, some are focused on the whim of their grant providers, but not more than half.

But… and this is important… I'd much rather have scientists on the science review board than non-scientists.

And… why block medical studies on people? Why block prior experience? Why block any peer-reviewed science at all? It's stupid and unsupportable.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

First off, thanks for watching :-)



Their research is funded primarily by environmental advocacy groups. They use the results of this "research" as a reference when functioning on the EPA's Science Advisory Board, a government agency that is supposed to be scientifically objective and unbiased. It has not been for years, because in our modern times you can buy science.


I used a random number generator to pic a random scientist from the advisory board and see what his/her deal was.

1-7 for the standing committees
1-13 for the Environmental Engineering Committee
I arrived at Herschel Elliott



Dr. Herschel A. Elliott is a Professor of Agricultural and Biological Engineering at Penn State University. He holds a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Tennessee, and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Civil (Environmental) Engineering from the University of Delaware. For 30 years, Dr. Elliott has been involved in teaching, research, and consulting in the areas of fate and transport of pollutants in aquatic and soil systems, and the evaluation and design of land-based waste disposal systems.


Let's see if we can find where he get's his funding besides his salary for his award winning teaching.

$23,500Surface and Subsurface Nutrient Transport in the Near-Stream Zone of an Agricultural Headwater Watershed in Central Pennsylvania.



Pennsylvania Sea Grant is a joint effort of Penn State University, NOAA, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

That's a University, Federal Agency and State Funds.

Want to do another one? :-)

edit on 26-11-2014 by theNLBS because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-11-2014 by theNLBS because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

Your random number generator is very selective. Please read the following regarding financial conflict of interest within the EPA, particularly the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC).

JunkScience - Clearing the air on the EPA


According to EPA records, CASAC Chairman Jonathan M. Samet is listed as a principal investigator on grants from the agency totaling $9,526,921. The other CASAC board members have received grants from the EPA: George Allen ($3,907,111); Ana Diez-Roux ($31,343,081); H. Christopher Frey ($2,956,432); G. Armistead Russell ($20,130,736); and Helen Suh ($10,962,364).

Although EPA records do not list seventh board member Kathleen Weathers as a principal investigator receiving any grants from the agency, her employer, the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, is listed as the lead institution in EPA grants totaling $3,570,926.

Other than for Ms. Weathers, these sums don’t include any grants awarded to the CASAC members’ institutions in which the CASAC member is not listed as the principal investigator. So these sums could just be the tip of the iceberg.


Ummm.... millions and millions of dollars of grants where the principal investigator of the funding is the EPA's own CASAC chairman, and the recipients are other CASAC board members. Do they sound like "independent experts"?


“The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) provides independent advice to the EPA Administrator on the technical bases for EPA’s national ambient air quality standards.” I suppose it depends on what the meaning of “independent” is.

We all have random number generators.

I am not saying the bill will cleanse the grubby science of the EPA, but it may hinder the in-bred money-and-ego environmentalist masturbation session that has been going on at the expense of the taxpayers.

But I do support mandatory computer checks for EPA board members, as they have been exposed to have an unnaturally aggressive affinity for internet pRon.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Sorry but sound isn't working so i will go with an educated guess as to the content .

Who needs scientists . I have eyes skin and a memory . Every year here in Australia we are breaking temperature records . This year it was only jacket weather for 2 months where i live whereas it used to be at least 4 months of rugging up . I now fish where i used to park the car . I used to put the tent 20 metres from high tide now i walk over dunes straight to the water 40 foot over my old site . Coastal erosion maybe , but the problem here used to be dunes disappearing . Maybe i am seeing something that isn't there but its hard to argue with heat sand and water .
edit on 26-11-2014 by hutch622 because: typo



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 05:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheFlesh1980
a reply to: theNLBS

Your random number generator is very selective. Please read the following regarding financial conflict of interest within the EPA, particularly the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC).

JunkScience - Clearing the air on the EPA


If you’re going to try to counter the OP’s point, you should probably research your sources better next time.

You’re using a link to junkscience.com – this is a website explicitly designed to undermine legitimate scientific research that also happens to be inconvenient to various big business agendas. This is exactly where the term “junk science” originates from:


The Consumers Union (US) wrote that "as far as we have been able to trace, the phrase "junk science" has been coined by those practicing public relations and lobbying activities on behalf of some companies in certain industries--particularly the plastics, chemical, biotechnology, and pesticide industries. While its coiners may have legitimate grounds for debate on some issues, the phrase has been used far too often to discredit honest public interest organizations and legitimate scientists who express concerns about consumer safety and environmental risks."

SourceWatch


And this is also exactly the sort of point NLBS was making – that proper science is being snuffed out by these corporate shills and the politicians that pander to them.

Junkscience.com is run by a proven industry shill who first worked on behalf of tobacco companies to negate the health hazards of smoking, and now collects paycheques from the fossil fuel industry and other big polluters to undermine environmental science. If you want proof just read this thread.


You’re certainly on the right track about $$$$ and big business agendas getting in the way of honest science – you just happen to be going in the completely wrong direction on that track.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Are you saying the data he presented is wrong? Please tell me you aren't saying that...



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

Same 'ol, same 'ol. Thanks for covering.

F&S&



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: theNLBS

This is what happens when morons outbreed intelligent people.

We need to start a eugenics program.

America is lost im moving to the mountains and hiding. See you guys on the other side.


Nope - it's about education not breeding.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
When I received my four year diploma in Geology, they basically still taught the earth was flat. It took another four years and the discovery of continental drift before anything made any sense. I was taught that mountain building was due to a valley filling up with sediment causing mountains to be pushed up parallel to the valley. Seriously, this was program at that time. An example would be Death Valley.

So, I was educated, but entirely educated with B.S. a reply to: FyreByrd



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: elfrog

Then you don't have a degree in geology unless you were being facetious...

Nobody has ever taught the earth was flat. And continental drift (Plate Tectonics) has been in all college curriculum since the late 60's...

Or you're super old like me...Or you were educated in another country that was decades behind...

However, I believe he was referring to general education emphasizing reading, writing, math and science.
edit on 26-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 06:12 AM
link   


not sure if it is relevant but maybe they take deals to say alive?



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Thurisaz

that deserves a thread.. do you have one


@joe

NLBS

I didnt like the

shirt


I know its really important...


I was thinking the playing with the pen thing was funny

Do you have mugs..
You could have one on your desk

I am listening to the next one so I am going to that one to respond



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

Humm, I decided to watch this episode and see what it is about. I won't even go into what "Joe" is trying to debate about the bills as I have seen other members already do that. However I noticed some obvious connotations made by Joe which clearly shows how one sided his argument is, and how he tries to dismiss this out of hand by making statements which really have no relevance to such a discussion, and there is no truth to them.

Joe is obviously even ignoring the fact that the EPA is very one sided, and not in favor for science.

While I disagree with some of the legislation passed by some Republicans, such as "corporate personhood". However, in this case it is obviously apparent to me how unbalanced and one sided this argument made by Joe was.

First, the statement that the bill is "an anti-science law"? More so when in the bill part of what these Senators are saying is that it makes no sense for EPA scientists to "EVALUTATE THEIR OWN WORK"... Really? so you don't see wisdom for other experts who did not write the papers to evaluate that work? Then you go on to say, or "imply" that the experts that conservatives would use will not really be experts at all. So you know now those experts? could you please give us here a list of those experts so we can judge for ourselves whether or not they can be considered as experts?

Then Joe goes on to labeling conservatives as "science fearing"... Really?... You are obviously ignoring that there are many scientists who are conservative Joe... So, from the start it is obvious that this is a very biased, one sided episode.

Without mentioning that Joe is trying to make interpretations which are not explicit in the text, but Joe is making some wild allegations as to the interpretation of the text.

Then Joe claims that all scientists at the EPA are some of the best independent scientists, when by now most members of ATS are aware of how one sided those experts from the EPA are, who alongside Obama and his administration we know they have tried to bypass Congress when it comes to passing legislation those "independent experts of the EPA" and the Obama administration have wanted to pass...

Then, Joe proclaims that the same scientists who wrote their own research work should be able to evaluate it themselves... Wait, what? How do you figure that the same people who wrote a paper should be the ones to evaluate the validity of it without bias? Not even in the peer-review process is this done.

Then alongside other things Joe goes on to say "James Inhofe... a climate change skeptic goes on to say".... What exactly are you trying to claim there Joe?... Since when is being a skeptic a bad thing? Not to mention that the claim of being a "climate change skeptic" has been shown in the forums to be an obvious red herring since everyone knows the climate can and does change NATURALLY. Inhofe among others is a skeptic of Anthropogenic Global Warming, or the claim that "mankind activities" is the cause behind global warming.

So, what do you have to say to all the AGW skeptic members of ATS Joe? Our opinions don't matter either?





edit on 14-12-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment, and correct statement.



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 1   >>

log in

join