quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Only an idiot who things he knows enough about trees and isn't an expert on them would hold that opinion. Experts offer a lot more insight into the topic than a moron who thinks he understands them. It's mentalities like that which has resulted in the overconsumption of water in lake mead, the increased severity of forest fires over the past several decades, and the damage caused by CFCs to the ozone layer, just to name a few examples.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


I'm wondering why a group of politicians would need to invite anyone (scientist or otherwise) to discuss the politicization of anything. They have experts on politicization of everything right there, in the congress.



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Only an idiot who things he knows enough about trees and isn't an expert on them would hold that opinion. Experts offer a lot more insight into the topic than a moron who thinks he understands them. It's mentalities like that which has resulted in the overconsumption of water in lake mead, the increased severity of forest fires over the past several decades, and the damage caused by CFCs to the ozone layer, just to name a few examples.

Oh, and Tkman117, as a person who has often hired foresters and arborists (as they explained it, an arborist is a forester who works down in the flat land and forester is an arborist who works up in the mountains and forests) they are bachelor level educated people who manage trees but don't purport to be tree scientists. So, strictly speaking Sanity is correct if we are talking tree scientists here. But, when you provide your details of your expertise, perhaps I'll defer to that. Okay?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Only an idiot who things he knows enough about trees and isn't an expert on them would hold that opinion. Experts offer a lot more insight into the topic than a moron who thinks he understands them. It's mentalities like that which has resulted in the overconsumption of water in lake mead, the increased severity of forest fires over the past several decades, and the damage caused by CFCs to the ozone layer, just to name a few examples.

Oh, the natural tendency for a liberal to be butt hurt is showing. Tsk tsk. And you're expertise is what????

Here, just for you. http://news.psu.edu/story/270206/2013/03/26/research/suppression-naturally-occurring-blazes-may-increase-wildfire-risk

A discussion of what all tree people thought they knew and then applied to forest management.

Point taken, I'll admit that point slipped my mind. However, not including an expert opinion could prove more dangerous than including them. Or would you prefer to stumble around making decisions based on conjecture?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Only an idiot who things he knows enough about trees and isn't an expert on them would hold that opinion. Experts offer a lot more insight into the topic than a moron who thinks he understands them. It's mentalities like that which has resulted in the overconsumption of water in lake mead, the increased severity of forest fires over the past several decades, and the damage caused by CFCs to the ozone layer, just to name a few examples.

Oh, and Tkman117, as a person who has often hired foresters and arborists (as they explained it, an arborist is a forester who works down in the flat land and forester is an arborist who works up in the mountains and forests) they are bachelor level educated people who manage trees but don't purport to be tree scientists. So, strictly speaking Sanity is correct if we are talking tree scientists here. But, when you provide your details of your expertise, perhaps I'll defer to that. Okay?

When has a bachelor level anything claimed to be tree scientists? Clearly an expert is someone who has done the work to get a PhD, or at minimum a master's in their subject. And like I said earlier, involving experts in major decisions is simply common sense, you should try using it some time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

You seem to easily confuse "butt hurt" with "surprised anyone can be that stupid". I wholeheartedly agree, people who work with trees may know some parts of the full picture, but someone who understand their biology, their nutritional needs, the required climate, etc. is what could be considered an expert. Someone who studied trees and attained their PhD or Masters, less likely Masters, can be more appropriately named as experts and should be included in major decisions regarding trees. If congress decided they wanted some exotic tree planeted outside their building and it didn't survive because it wasn't in the right climate or soil, then that's taxpayer money wasted, then who's the ones who are really butt hurt? The people who's taxpayer money was just wasted because the house failed to consult an expert on the matter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

You seem to easily confuse "butt hurt" with "surprised anyone can be that stupid". I wholeheartedly agree, people who work with trees may know some parts of the full picture, but someone who understand their biology, their nutritional needs, the required climate, etc. is what could be considered an expert. Someone who studied trees and attained their PhD or Masters, less likely Masters, can be more appropriately named as experts and should be included in major decisions regarding trees. If congress decided they wanted some exotic tree planeted outside their building and it didn't survive because it wasn't in the right climate or soil, then that's taxpayer money wasted, then who's the ones who are really butt hurt? The people who's taxpayer money was just wasted because the house failed to consult an expert on the matter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

That statement was honestly so stupid I'm speechless. Maybe you should review the topic before posting again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I'm wondering why a group of politicians would need to invite anyone (scientist or otherwise) to discuss the politicization of anything. They have experts on politicization of everything right there, in the congress.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I'm wondering why a group of politicians would need to invite anyone (scientist or otherwise) to discuss the politicization of anything. They have experts on politicization of everything right there, in the congress.

At the local level, I've seen quite a few scientists called in to help handle an issue of importance to the community. That through their study and knowledge provide resources the community did not have access to before to arrive at a better decision. Who better to understand the effects of medical drugs on the human body than a medical doctor?

quote:

Who is more qualified in how certain chemicals could interact over a number of years to create hazardous problems: a Chemist or something without a scientific background?

quote:

This works at the state and federal levels. When such knowledge has been used; often good things come about in the process and the finished 'product'. Often people that feel the audience is now listening to the informed more than then will try tactics that undermine the process. Often how bad government comes into being is due to ego's getting out of control.

Scientists to have to be very careful to separate their political leans to their scientific study when dealing with the public. Explaining the effects or reaction of a situation in science verse pushing their political viewpoint in subtle terms has to be guarded. They have a greater duty to remain neutral, politically speaking, when giving information to the community. To give an analogy, it would be like

quote:

asking a priest to weigh in on a matter of social conflict. They have to guard against pushing a religion onto people and instead give the best possible advice in handling a situation.

Very hard for both to perform sometimes. Passion, as we have seen on this forum, can be highly destructive when not handled carefully.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

That statement was honestly so stupid I'm speechless. Maybe you should review the topic before posting again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I'm wondering why a group of politicians would need to invite anyone (scientist or otherwise) to discuss the politicization of anything. They have experts on politicization of everything right there, in the congress.

At the local level, I've seen quite a few scientists called in to help handle an issue of importance to the community. That through their study and knowledge provide resources the community did not have access to before to arrive at a better decision. Who better to understand the effects of medical drugs on the human body than a medical doctor? Who is more qualified in how certain chemicals could interact over a number of years to create hazardous problems: a Chemist or something without a scientific background?

This works at the state and federal levels. When such knowledge has been used; often good things come about in the process and the finished 'product'. Often people that feel the audience is now listening to the informed more than then will try tactics that undermine the process. Often how bad government comes into being is due to ego's getting out of control.

Scientists to have to be very careful to separate their political leans to their scientific study when dealing with the public. Explaining the effects or reaction of a situation in science verse pushing their political viewpoint in subtle terms has to be guarded. They have a greater duty to remain neutral, politically speaking, when giving information to the community. To give an analogy, it would be like asking a priest to weigh in on a matter of social conflict. They have to guard against pushing a religion onto people and instead give the best possible advice in handling a situation.

Very hard for both to perform sometimes. Passion, as we have seen on this forum, can be highly destructive when not handled carefully.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I'm wondering why a group of politicians would need to invite anyone (scientist or otherwise) to discuss the politicization of anything. They have experts on politicization of everything right there, in the congress.

At the local level, I've seen quite a few scientists called in to help handle an issue of importance to the community. That through their study and knowledge provide resources the community did not have access to before to arrive at a better decision. Who better to understand the effects of medical drugs on the human body than a medical doctor?

A Pharmacist.

quote:

Who is more qualified in how certain chemicals could interact over a number of years to create hazardous problems: a Chemist or something without a scientific background?

An environmental scientist.

quote:

This works at the state and federal levels. When such knowledge has been used; often good things come about in the process and the finished 'product'. Often people that feel the audience is now listening to the informed more than then will try tactics that undermine the process. Often how bad government comes into being is due to ego's getting out of control.

Scientists to have to be very careful to separate their political leans to their scientific study when dealing with the public. Explaining the effects or reaction of a situation in science verse pushing their political viewpoint in subtle terms has to be guarded. They have a greater duty to remain neutral, politically speaking, when giving information to the community. To give an analogy, it would be like

quote:

asking a priest to weigh in on a matter of social conflict. They have to guard against pushing a religion onto people and instead give the best possible advice in handling a situation.

Very hard for both to perform sometimes. Passion, as we have seen on this forum, can be highly destructive when not handled carefully.

Wait, what? You think that priests and other religious leaders do NOT use their religious beliefs in regards to social conflict?

Two people from history you might want to Google. Martin Luther and Dr. Martin Luther King.

Of course history is not really your "thing."

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Lol, there is only one type of science: science. Anything else isn't science, or is classified as psuedoscience. Sadly those on the right have an inability to understand that, most likely because science kinda ruins their fabricated reality with uncomfortable truths.

right---because all "real" scientists are only liberals and other leftists. there are no conservative or libertarian scientists out there. or people on the right who aren't scientists, but who nevertheless appreciate it and understand it.

the sad thing is, in your partisan pseudo-intellectuality, you have no idea how incredibly naïve and untenable your statement is.

you unfortunately and shockingly equate absence of agreement with your views as evidence of a lack of scientific rigor from those you disagree with.