 |
Re: Anti coal trains in Colubmia River Gorge video
Author: OldPoleBurner
Date: 02-17-2014 - 13:28
> The problem for the average person is to separate the fact from emotion in each argument
> in order to come with a logical, well thought out opinion on the subject.
Also needed, is to separate fact from political axes to grind. Much of the info extant in the media, and in government chambers everywhere, is patently false. Even some so-called peer reviewed scientific data is seriously questionable; often misrepresented by politically biased journalists and educators.
Indeed, if major scientific journals were not themselves biased, minority reports covering various dissenting opinions on all scientific issues, would also be published along with the majority opinion. But minority opinions generally do not get published.
That's right folks, real scientists rarely agree on anything. There is always much skepticism and dissent on just about everything published. Contrary to urban myth, they are NOT at all monolithic in their views, especially when it comes to environmental issues.
Though they are out there, because of media and academia biases, it is hard for the public to find unfiltered dissenting opinions. You commonly do not get published if you do not toe the "party line". However, a bit of old fashioned critical thinking, can at least alert the common fellow, to remain skeptical of any so-called scientific opinion that thereby seems fishy. Indeed, any claim that anything is a "Scientific Fact", needs to be challenged - as there truly is no such thing!
Science, despite the real meaning of the Latin root of the word, is always just current opinion. And if you don't like it now, just wait awhile. It will change just as soon as someone comes up with contradictory evidence - and that ALWAYS happens sooner or later. When I was in high school (1960s), the prevailing scientific opinion was that we all (at our age) would see the next "Ice Age", and our teachers never missed a chance to scare the hell out of us about it. Fast forward a few years to the 1990s, those of us that didn't like the idea of freezing, had nothing more to fear. Global Warming was the new political and "scientific" mantra.
A case in point as to where "Scientific Facts" were not all that they seemed: The treatment of coal is now required; to prevent coal dust from fouling the railroad ballast; and to satisfy complaints from nearby residents, environmentalists, and various NIMBY groups. Unfortunately, the chemical engineers and scientists involved in finding a practical way to comply with this regulation, failed to do all their environmental homework. The natural and predictable (to those with any common sense) result? An unmitigated regional environmental disaster in the Raleigh area, as the stuff used to keep the dust down leaked out of its manufacturing facility into the rivers. Now ALL the drinking water for hundreds of thousands has been contaminated.
Another case in point: MTBE, was once required in California gasoline based upon 'scientific fact", to reduce air pollution: Skeptics in the scientific community were ignored. And sure enough, MTBE actually increased air pollution, and worse yet, began to seep into well water in some areas. Of course, it is now banned, based upon "scientific data". The irony here is hard to stomach, for any trained engineer, or applied scientist.
Another absurd case of science gone awry, I personally ran across: In the Early 1970s, BART commissioned a scientific empirical study of track circuit dynamics. It was then used to justify a $15-20 million addendum to a train control contract to "compensate" for those unsafe track circuits. But then, a few decades later, that "same scientific data" was used to demonstrate that they were already inherently safe; relieving the then current contractor of the obligation to make them safe. BIAS IS EVERYWHERE !
But the most absurd of all? Santa Barbara (if memory serves - or a nearby town) officially banned the substance "dihydrogen oxide" by ordinance, based upon all the supposed scientific evidence they had heard about, showing it to be a very dangerous substance. After all, it can be scientifically shown that inhaling even small amounts is fatal to over 80% of those who do so; not to mention all the other problems caused by excessive consumption. I assume it has since been quietly repealed.
But such knee-jerk reaction is so typical of many so-called environmentalists. But to be fair, these sorts of people are not really environmentalist at all - they are actually politicians disguised as environmentalists. Same for many so-called scientists; merely disguised politicians; Indeed - political hammers, always on the lookout for political nails to drive down our collective throats!
> in order to come with a logical, well thought out opinion on the subject.
Also needed, is to separate fact from political axes to grind. Much of the info extant in the media, and in government chambers everywhere, is patently false. Even some so-called peer reviewed scientific data is seriously questionable; often misrepresented by politically biased journalists and educators.
Indeed, if major scientific journals were not themselves biased, minority reports covering various dissenting opinions on all scientific issues, would also be published along with the majority opinion. But minority opinions generally do not get published.
That's right folks, real scientists rarely agree on anything. There is always much skepticism and dissent on just about everything published. Contrary to urban myth, they are NOT at all monolithic in their views, especially when it comes to environmental issues.
Though they are out there, because of media and academia biases, it is hard for the public to find unfiltered dissenting opinions. You commonly do not get published if you do not toe the "party line". However, a bit of old fashioned critical thinking, can at least alert the common fellow, to remain skeptical of any so-called scientific opinion that thereby seems fishy. Indeed, any claim that anything is a "Scientific Fact", needs to be challenged - as there truly is no such thing!
Science, despite the real meaning of the Latin root of the word, is always just current opinion. And if you don't like it now, just wait awhile. It will change just as soon as someone comes up with contradictory evidence - and that ALWAYS happens sooner or later. When I was in high school (1960s), the prevailing scientific opinion was that we all (at our age) would see the next "Ice Age", and our teachers never missed a chance to scare the hell out of us about it. Fast forward a few years to the 1990s, those of us that didn't like the idea of freezing, had nothing more to fear. Global Warming was the new political and "scientific" mantra.
A case in point as to where "Scientific Facts" were not all that they seemed: The treatment of coal is now required; to prevent coal dust from fouling the railroad ballast; and to satisfy complaints from nearby residents, environmentalists, and various NIMBY groups. Unfortunately, the chemical engineers and scientists involved in finding a practical way to comply with this regulation, failed to do all their environmental homework. The natural and predictable (to those with any common sense) result? An unmitigated regional environmental disaster in the Raleigh area, as the stuff used to keep the dust down leaked out of its manufacturing facility into the rivers. Now ALL the drinking water for hundreds of thousands has been contaminated.
Another case in point: MTBE, was once required in California gasoline based upon 'scientific fact", to reduce air pollution: Skeptics in the scientific community were ignored. And sure enough, MTBE actually increased air pollution, and worse yet, began to seep into well water in some areas. Of course, it is now banned, based upon "scientific data". The irony here is hard to stomach, for any trained engineer, or applied scientist.
Another absurd case of science gone awry, I personally ran across: In the Early 1970s, BART commissioned a scientific empirical study of track circuit dynamics. It was then used to justify a $15-20 million addendum to a train control contract to "compensate" for those unsafe track circuits. But then, a few decades later, that "same scientific data" was used to demonstrate that they were already inherently safe; relieving the then current contractor of the obligation to make them safe. BIAS IS EVERYWHERE !
But the most absurd of all? Santa Barbara (if memory serves - or a nearby town) officially banned the substance "dihydrogen oxide" by ordinance, based upon all the supposed scientific evidence they had heard about, showing it to be a very dangerous substance. After all, it can be scientifically shown that inhaling even small amounts is fatal to over 80% of those who do so; not to mention all the other problems caused by excessive consumption. I assume it has since been quietly repealed.
But such knee-jerk reaction is so typical of many so-called environmentalists. But to be fair, these sorts of people are not really environmentalist at all - they are actually politicians disguised as environmentalists. Same for many so-called scientists; merely disguised politicians; Indeed - political hammers, always on the lookout for political nails to drive down our collective throats!
