Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Scientists, in the Age of Trump

The NY Times runs anti-Trump articles every day, and now the science section reports:
In Age of Trump, Scientists Show Signs of a Political Pulse

Michael Eisen, an evolutionary biologist, is among the elite of American scientists, with a tenured position at the University of California, Berkeley, and generous funding from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute for his research on fruit flies.

But late last month, dismayed over the Trump administration’s apparent disdain for evidence on climate change and other issues, Dr. Eisen registered the Twitter handle @SenatorPhD and declared his intention to run in the 2018 election for a seat in the United States Senate from California. His campaign slogan: “Liberty, Equality, Reality.”
Why is it that an evolutionary biologist can spend his career studying fruit flies, and suddenly think that he is an expert on climate change?

This seems to be a disease among evolutionary biologists, that they are eager to jump into political disputes way outside their expertise.
Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, a cosmologist and particle physicist at the University of Washington,... said she was especially incensed by what she and others viewed as efforts by some science organizations to reach out to the Trump administration. ...

“What history has taught us is that collaboration doesn’t work for science,” Dr. Prescod-Weinstein said. “When we work with extremist, racist, Islamophobic or nationalist governments, it doesn’t work for science.”

Almost every government that has accomplishment anything in the history of science was what would now be classified Islamophobic and nationalist.

I would expect smart scientists to make more sense than this.


  1. Scientists believe that if they open their mouths and speak in the name of science, nobody has the right to argue or disagree with them. They forget that the same people who are not allowed to disagree with them are the people who are funding them.

  2. First question for a scientist who believes the earth is warming significantly due to human activity: Warming compared to what temperature? As far as I know, there never has been an actual 'average' temperature the earth is 'supposed' to be. Temperatures have gone up and down by a considerable margin over all geologic record. Before we talk average, I'd like to have a solid number, otherwise, what are we actually talking about?
    All you have to do to test a scientist's actual
    knowledge of a particular subject is ask them what the weaknesses of his own argument or position on the subject is. If he doesn't know of any, he' either misleading/lying or incredibly ignorant of what he professes to know.
    I do not support any anthropogenic warming theories tied to CO2, as they are all misty, vague, or misleading about exactly how much CO2 will cause a predicted amount of temperature change, and almost entirely lock step policy-wise with socialist/communist politics and objectives. When asked for actual details, real scientists don't use metaphors, ridiculous adjectives, and hyperbole, they use numbers that careful observation agrees with.

  3. Oh yes, almost forgot,
    When the scientist claims a variation in temperature caused by humans, ask how much that variation is, then ask them what their margin of error is. If the margin of error is much larger than the 'signal' detected, they have nothing. Period.