April 20, 2006

Cutting Edge of Science

Attended a sponsored talk last night by Jane Lubchencko - one of Oregon State University's shining starts - a molecular biologist discussing global warming. Of cource, climate change is the new buzz-word as the main stream media is set on scaring the beejeebers out of the idiot public. And Ms Lubchenko demonstrated that she was bought and sold by the system and her employer grubbermentD, which continually spews nonsense contradictory to the grubbermintR. She used discredited data (the hockey stick graph), showed most data back only to 1850 and told us stuff about what other folks did without showing any real data of support. Then she showed two blatant pieces of propoganda from the National Ad Council that were as bogus as the fried eggs simulating your brain on drugs.*

I was terribly disappointed. Here i thought i was going to see a new presentation by a major noted scientist, a member of the National Academy. And what i got was the manure i could read in a news magazine - in fact, she showed me pictures of news magazine covers to have me buy in support. When I asked why the state climatologist and fellow Oregon State University scientist George Taylor gives a vastly different presentation, she simple told me that George Taylor was a meteorologist and not a scientist and really doesn't understand science. From the quality of the presentation and the support of the argument with data - I'd say that Ms Lubchenko would not be able to compete with Mr. Taylor in a legitimate debate. Which their common employer (and dr. lenny's alma mater) Oregon State University aught to be holding for the public to learn, rather than sending contradictory speakers to the same area, both brandishing the same credentials.

In dr. lenny's opinion, both lines of though refer to a broken model that doesn't hold water about how the earth respirates. There is no doubt that climate patterns are changing, but global warming is a given in an open system where incident fresh energy is input for use and emitted back as less ordered, harvested used energy. (as light, still coherent and thus highly ordered). The key is in the chemistry and none of these scientists seem to understand that their assumptions have not been properly validated in frame of reference to what we know as science fact, rather than the propaganda that has been spoon-fed to us.

If you wish to learn about science - start observing things. Document the time observing and when you have hit some pre-set benchmarks (50h, 250h, 1000h, 5000h), take stock in what you have learned and track your pace. Answer your own questions, while you generate new questions, and save the hard ones to ask somebody wioth more experience. The questions that start to stump dr. lenny, like what is sentience (thanks vache), make us think deeper into our own thoughts and that's where the breadth of expansion takes place.

It's like when we discover a whole new field of illusion that we never conceived of, then find that other's have explored that field to great depth. And the light really turns on, beeping and buzzing, when you find that the folks that honestly explored that field have developed the same basis set of mechanisms on how things work in their field, that you have found in your field (which is necessary for a continuum in science). The synergism builds as the disussion of the fine structure takes place and the lessons learned in one area are transfered and interpolated into the other area. The key is to listen, and integrate, and resolve the inconsistencies that arise from the difference between observation and theory. That is the cutting edge of science, and jane lubchenko was just not there. Disappointing.

No comments: