Science buffs, do you cringe when you hear a politician use the phrase "sound science"?

Just as much as when they say "everyone thinks THEY'RE an economist --- only government can solve this problem".

They're a diluted bunch that are subject to the information they receive -- namely that information coming from "in-the-pocket" sidemen like Al Gore.

Anthropogenic global warming is getting attacked from every angle...and it's about time.

Al Gore will have made Bernie Madoff look like a petty thief when this is all said and done. Counting the government policy and his carbon-credit program, we'll have spent trillions on this "sound science".

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=...

______________________________________________

"The term "sound science" is all too frequently invoked by far-right leaning politicians to refute AGW. The actual science behind the theory seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of one conclusion. The "sound science" comes from think tanks who reach their conclusions (any restrictions placed on business are bad and harmful) and work backwards from there. Nothing scientific about that. Other forms of "sound science" come from the fringes, which are somehow held in special reverence over the mainstream scientific community."

First off, the term "sound science" comes directly from Al Gore and company, so don't be confused. Do right-wingers say it? Yes -- but it was not of their origin and as more scientists step forward to refute the junk science -- are more entitled to the phrase as they're most likely correct. And to be realistic about it, most political figures have connections to the scientific community -- it's not like they "Jump-to-Conclusions" a la the 'Office Space' floor mat.

And what "sound science" do you refer to where you can draw only one conclusion?

If you're referring to the hockey stick shaped graph from which anthropogenic global warming is based, then yes -- "sound science" dictates that the formula is in fact flawed, and no matter what data you pump into it you always get that hockey stick shape...which leaves only one conclusion.

A hypothesis with no test leads to no observation and no theory and/or conclusion. Junk science!

By the way, take a look at the links...these are world renowned scientists...not political pocket men. They're running for the hills.

Another interesting fact -- Al Gore and his cronies REFUSE to have a political debate about AGW. They're actually being sued right now by the founder of the weather channel and thousands of other scientists wishing to debate the issue in an open forum. Al Gore says no. ;) Wonder why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B05xnnVjJk

_________________________________________________

"Science shouldn't be debated in a political forum. Political forums are for debating what policies to put in place based on science."

Unless of course we're already basing policies on the science that many people think is junk. At that point, it needs to be aired out -- present both cases and the data/functions they've used to secure their conclusions. The real science will prevail -- the junk science will not. At that point, we can start making policy decisions based on science and stop throwing billions at the wall.

"Politicians aren't scientists. I really don't know what is meant by having a debate on AGW. I don't use Al Gore as a source for accepting or denying anything science related. I don't use the hockey stick graph, either, in my assessment of what is scientifically accurate or not."

It sounded like you were defending Al Gore's assertion that anthropogenic global warming is real based on the current data...being that your question is based on the use of the coined phrase "sound science" by political figures "knowing what they're talking about."

As for not wanting to have an open debate -- Al Gore is scamming people out of money through his carbon-credits scheme...he claims to have thousands of scientists on his side...and he's in cahoots with Obama dictating our policies at the cost of billions of dollars.

If he does have scientific proof -- he needs to release it. If he doesn't -- he needs to step aside and relinquish his tower. Simple. Then we can get on w/ real scientific discussions. Until then, he and his followers will be the focal point of the discussion -- "sound science" or not.

Depends upon the use, but I guess yes, just because I've been in politics 20yrs. and first wanted to be a scientist, and have remained a science enthusiast; and know what passes for sound science; but if they don't say "sound" science, and just say science, 9 times our of 10 its just like McCarthy reading black paper to the press.

Either no science their willing to actually disclose, or something someone said at a conference they heard, but can't remember well enough to recite; and when questioned it usually turns out to be both irrelevant and highly debatable, even within the field the speaker works in.

With regard to Global Warming what always gets me, is how before the mini-medieval ice age the ponds in London never froze; which means were still in it, and the rise in temperatures most frequently used, several degrees per century, would seem to be a natural result of our leaving it.

So either: we're having no effect; or were having a tremendous effect, and their choosing the most conservative numbers to tell us, and someone picked up upon the above phenomena and either mistakenly or intentionally labeled it our doing, so that our doing is considerably more.

I go with the second, but as soon as you think you know something you stop looking for other answers, which not only hurts that pursuit, but if done across the board cuts off the majority of the additional pursuits, which are found accidentally while researching something else.

And besides nature has a way of disproving our scientists beliefs, just as they though most of them agreed, because it easy to forget that the principals of science are observation, not extrapolation and debate.

I don't cringe but much "sound science" is based on research financed by corporations with a vested interest in gearing the research to present the results they want. In 50 years time, people will laugh at some of the conclusions we arrived at "scientifically". Just think of how many disasters ill thought through science has brought us!

Yes because most science is never a fact it is based on an experiment so it is stupid to say that science is sound.

I cringe when I hear or read about "Global Warming" and when someone starts off by saying This is effects from what happened ..bla bla bla.. 234987 Million Billion Years Ago... ugh. so annoying.

I do the same thing when someone in an interview says

"honestly, ..."

Because it insinuates we wanted you to lie to us, but we'll accept an honest truth for now.

Well, since there isn't really much "sound science" anymore it only makes sense that politicians use the term.

I believe he regurgitated the same lie about economics.

Like they do with global warming?

No, I don't.