[ RadSafe ] "overwhelming" number of scientists andclimatechange

Fri Jul 27 10:34:48 CDT 2012

Karen Street,

      Cochlear Implants???

      Google    preisig and muller  and cochlear

      Google    preisig and  muller

      Are these implants battery powered or  nuclear (gamma???) powered???

      Guess someday soon people at Johns Hopkins,  UPenn, etc. will be 
making similar devices for
the blind.  Lately also, there has been some progress with blind  people 
and gene therapy.
See the internet????

      Glad you can hear again.  My family has  Preisig's and Muller's 
(mostly from Bavaria/Bayern, 
Germany and perhaps Switzerland), but I don't know of any  
Preisig-Mullers????

      Take Care...    Joe  Preisig

In a message dated 7/25/2012 7:57:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net writes:

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.

> RADSAFErs,
> 
> 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