[ RadSafe ] "overwhelming" number of scientists andclimatechange

Thompson, Dewey L DThompson3 at ameren.com
Wed Jul 25 19:29:45 CDT 2012

Mmmmm.   We may both be risking The Wrath Of Jeff. I won't speak to climates or deniers.  

I WILL speak to something else you said.   That you are using the term science in a narrow sense limiting your thoughts to publishing PhDs.  
(if I think long enough, I ought to be able to come up with a nifty alliteration expanding on that).  

As Heinlein said, Most "Scientists" are button sorters and bottle washers. 

The point is, does the "scientist" have the capacity for original (and independent) thought.


Sent using BlackBerry

----- Original Message -----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu <radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu>
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Wed Jul 25 18:56:19 2012
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] "overwhelming" number of scientists andclimatechange

Troll? OK, this is continuing, so with Jeff's indulgence....

Note: I use the term scientist in its most narrow sense, for people with PhDs who do research that results in peer review publication in the field being discussed.

I came on this list because I had questions about things nuclear after Fukushima. I became pro-nuclear in 1995 while writing a paper for a writing class, after losing a lot of my hearing so I could no longer teach physics. (I now have cochlear implants.) I thought nuclear and coal probably equally bad, and was unconcerned about climate change, but am grateful that I never made public announcements, never said, "it's the sun" until after I began reading. The sources of web information on nuclear power at that time were environmental types, and physicists. I never encountered anyone who was pro-nuclear who was not an academic type until much later. The pro-nuclear scientists I read said that much more important than air pollution was climate change. I read much more about both.

I began presenting on and writing about nuclear power as I went increasingly deaf, and then began to do even more as I began to hear again after becoming bionic. I learned very quickly that for perhaps 3/4 of the audience, the facts don't matter. Many have no way to communicate their opposition to nuclear power, they often aren't articulate (eg, many say, what about nuclear waste? and I ask, what about nuclear waste? and most can't answer). And the facts really don't matter.

I do presentations on climate change and nuclear power. I provided this group a link to a blog post that describes how effective inclusion of what social scientists say about why we don't listen to the facts is to helping people listen to the facts, at least in these two presentations. Since frustration is frequently expressed on this list about people who get the facts wrong, I thought that this process might be of interest to some on the list. 

It immediately degenerated into, "climate change isn't happening and the causes are natural". I've seen similar posts a number of times in the year or so I've been on the list. Social scientists say that most people use reasoning on controversial social issues to show that they are good and trustworthy members of the group, much more often than to explore the issues. Like so many lists, the set of acceptable topics expands (beyond radiation safety in this case)—this list has allowed gratuitous attacks on scientists and their work in a field that none of you, so far as I know, have studied. (Yes, knowledge of geology and physics and such gives us the background to understand some of the more complicated arguments, but that's not a PhD and peer review work in climatology, and few of us have tested our understanding with those in the field.) The overwhelming majority of climate scientists have a number of agreements about what is understood and how well after many decades of hard work, beginning during the US Civil War, seeing what has survived serious and multiple challenges (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107). The attacks came from people on this list with experience talking to like-minded people. BTW, the PNAS paper was written after frequent and vicious attacks on science and scientists.

I am curious what people believe about controversial social issues, in part because I am genuinely interested in how people think, and I do change my mind even on issues which I've thought about some and for which I have a preferred answer. I don't expect to learn anything from anyone who denies/is skeptical of scientific consensus, as I began with skepticism and so read extensively and am now convinced, and because I am rarely impressed by arguments which necessarily include the idea that scientists aren't as intelligent, thoughtful, moral as ... When people on this list began their attacks on scientists, I asked some very simple questions to see if they could explain to me what they believed beyond, "the people in that group are not moral, intelligent...." I heard from some of you on list, and 3 people contacted me off list, and I have now one partial answer. I don't know, I can't recall the numbers, scientists don't/can't possibly understand, the solutions cost too much, I don't like the kind of people who believe in climate change, those who disagree with me are unwilling to examine the issues—these aren't answers to the questions, OK, what is happening then? and, What are the causes? 

Franz, I hope that your sore threat improves and that the glass of wine at ambient temperature helps/doesn't impair the process. I have a sore throat, and am wondering if I too should open a bottle of wine..... I'm getting sick of peppermint tea.

> Please forgive me!!!! I have no sour throat, but a sore one....... I helped myself in the meantime with a glass of Spanish redwine at ambient temperature. Good night!
> Franz
> ---- franz.schoenhofer at chello.at schrieb:
>> Jerry, Terry, Karen,
> I wondered the last days, whether I was on the right list - climate change, global warming and the like instead of radiation protection, nuclear energy (and the like). Karen seems to be a (polite) troll, because she changes (again politely) the subject away from radiation protection. She uses a lot of psychological tricks, like "I am curious what you believe on global warming" and similar. If you really want to know my "opinion", which does not count at all: I have no opinion, because I have (except common sense) no knowledge about climatology nor paleoclimatology. Do you or anybody else on this list believe that the climate will behave as  being determined by an opinion poll????????This is absurd!!!!!!
> Jerry, as for your belief on having another beer: This is a very clever decision and I would like to join  you, but unfortunatély I have in spite of the high temperatur in Vienna a sour throat and this means I should not drink any cold liquid - and a warm beer is the worst drink I can think of!!!!!!!
> Cheers,
> Franz
> ---- Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com> schrieb:
>> Karen,, I am curious--how do we determine what the overwhelming number of 
> scientists believe  or not believe. Of the 100 or so scientisst who I might 
> personally know, almost all of them believe that concern over global warming is 
> nonsense. Of course, the number of scientisists who I might personally know is a 
> small frection of the total number, but I suspect it might be a representative 
> sample. Has anyone done a statistically valid survey on the subject?
> As to what do I believe-----
>     I believe I'll have another beer.
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Street <Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net>
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List 
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Tue, July 24, 2012 12:12:54 PM
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] since we're talking about climate change
> In the past and just now, people on this list who don't accept climate change 
> have posted that they don't accept climate change.
> I am curious as to what you do believe.
> Please avoid explaining that the overwhelming number of scientists are wrong or 
> read this or that this great scientist thinks other scientists are wrong.
> • Is Earth warming, and at what rate (in °C/decade)?
> • What is the cause? Don't use the word natural, but give particular mechanisms, 
> such as Earth is moving closer to the sun.
> When I ask climate skeptics/deniers these questions, it feels like pulling teeth 
> to get answers other than, "you're wrong, you child of Satan." Or the ones about 
> natural or scientists are just wrong or here is my scientist (inject name of 
> novelist or journalist) who disagrees.
> I really am curious.

Best wishes, 
Karen Street
Friends Energy Project
blog http://pathsoflight.us/musing/index.php

You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Note that any views or opinions presented in this message are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Ameren. All e-mails are subject to monitoring and archival. Finally, the recipient should check this message and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Ameren accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message and deleting the material from any computer. Ameren Corporation

More information about the RadSafe mailing list