3 ms·

> The concept of "nuclear winter" is a great example of science gone wrong. It's not science gone wrong. It's an example of politics co-opting and exploiting s

> The concept of "nuclear winter" is a great example of science gone wrong. It's not science gone wrong. It's an example of politics co-opting and exploiting science because science has the credibility that politics doesn't. The elites wanted to scale back nuclear spending and needed a cover to convince the masses and the soviets to support "denuclearization". History is full of "science" being exploited to advance a political agenda. One of the most poignant examples is nazi germany using social darwinism to justify their political agenda. Modern global warming scaremongering industry is the newest example of "science" being co-opted for a political agenda. Certainly, human activity is affecting the environment, but the doomsday nonsense peddled by al gore, dicaprio and the media isn't science, it's a politically driven scaremongering tactic to get the world under one "system" ( carbon tax, trade, etc ).

quotemstr 9y ago
It's a shame that you're being down voted. You're right about the political cooptioon of science. In my original message, I was trying to be minimally divisive. I think you're wrong on climate change, but for understandable reasons. We're been peddling lies under the name of science for so long now (see the role of sugar in nutrition) that science has lost much of the credibility it needs to drive the changes we need to address climate change. I don't blame people for distrusting counter-intuitive science generally these days. Maybe that's why we keep talking about ineffective emissions regulations instead of prototyping effective geoengineering remedies for the carbon forcing and ocean acidification.
- DubiousPusher 9y ago
  This comment is probably being downvoted for good reason. It has a valid core idea. Politicians often cherrypick science that agrees with their ideology to further their agenda. But this statement smacks of conspiracy, crankery and sloppy thinking. "It's not science gone wrong. It's an example of politics co-opting and exploiting science because science has the credibility that politics doesn't. The elites wanted to scale back nuclear spending and needed a cover to convince the masses and the soviets to support "denuclearization"." Who are 'the elites.' The Illuminati? Carl Sagan and company? Ronald Reagan who began the START treaty process? So Carl Sagan and other scientists entered into a conspiracy with Ronald Reagan to defraud the public with a poorly crafted scientific paper to boilster nuclear disarmament.
  - quotemstr 9y ago
    I don't think the OP was talking about the kind of conspiracy you describe. Or maybe he was: it doesn't matter, because there's a subtler point. Scientists are not somehow exempt from confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, and political biases can creep into research without anyone cackling in a smoke-filled room. Look, for example, at the current sorry state of social science research, much of which does not reproduce. Ego depletion, stereotype threat, the IAT: all "scientific" ideas that are politically convenient but fiction, and which went unquestioned for a long time because, deep down, most researchers didn't want these ideas to be wrong. That doesn't make these researchers conspirators.
    - DubiousPusher 9y ago
      And I completely agree. That's why I said the post"...has a valid core idea. Politicians often cherrypick science that agrees with their ideology to further their agenda." But I'm sorry the sentence I quoted isn't blatant crankery but it is loaded with conspiracy innuendo.

quotemstr 9y ago

It's a shame that you're being down voted. You're right about the political cooptioon of science. In my original message, I was trying to be minimally divisive. I think you're wrong on climate change, but for understandable reasons. We're been peddling lies under the name of science for so long now (see the role of sugar in nutrition) that science has lost much of the credibility it needs to drive the changes we need to address climate change. I don't blame people for distrusting counter-intuitive science generally these days. Maybe that's why we keep talking about ineffective emissions regulations instead of prototyping effective geoengineering remedies for the carbon forcing and ocean acidification.

DubiousPusher 9y ago
This comment is probably being downvoted for good reason. It has a valid core idea. Politicians often cherrypick science that agrees with their ideology to further their agenda. But this statement smacks of conspiracy, crankery and sloppy thinking. "It's not science gone wrong. It's an example of politics co-opting and exploiting science because science has the credibility that politics doesn't. The elites wanted to scale back nuclear spending and needed a cover to convince the masses and the soviets to support "denuclearization"." Who are 'the elites.' The Illuminati? Carl Sagan and company? Ronald Reagan who began the START treaty process? So Carl Sagan and other scientists entered into a conspiracy with Ronald Reagan to defraud the public with a poorly crafted scientific paper to boilster nuclear disarmament.
- quotemstr 9y ago
  I don't think the OP was talking about the kind of conspiracy you describe. Or maybe he was: it doesn't matter, because there's a subtler point. Scientists are not somehow exempt from confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, and political biases can creep into research without anyone cackling in a smoke-filled room. Look, for example, at the current sorry state of social science research, much of which does not reproduce. Ego depletion, stereotype threat, the IAT: all "scientific" ideas that are politically convenient but fiction, and which went unquestioned for a long time because, deep down, most researchers didn't want these ideas to be wrong. That doesn't make these researchers conspirators.
  - DubiousPusher 9y ago
    And I completely agree. That's why I said the post"...has a valid core idea. Politicians often cherrypick science that agrees with their ideology to further their agenda." But I'm sorry the sentence I quoted isn't blatant crankery but it is loaded with conspiracy innuendo.