NYTimes: Ben Carson’s opinion on climate science is invalid because he is only a physician

Yeah, but…

So here;s the NYTimes op-ed by Ishani Ganguli:

Screen Shot 2015-11-02 at 8.02.13 AM

Of course, how can GanGuli judge Carson’s opinion on climate science since he is “only” physician himself?

Screen Shot 2015-11-02 at 8.04.45 AM copy

Moreover, if Carson’s opinion on climate science is invalid since he is only a physician, how valid are opinions of climate science like this one heralded by the New York Times?

Screen Shot 2015-11-02 at 8.07.47 AM

Or what about the Times’ own editorial views? What makes Times’ editors smarter or more informed than Ben Carson?

Screen Shot 2015-11-02 at 8.10.51 AM

9 thoughts on “NYTimes: Ben Carson’s opinion on climate science is invalid because he is only a physician”

  1. I really do not know why people still think these morons are smart? Perhaps it is because they are smarter than the minions who believe everything they say…

  2. The American physician is required by medical school admission standards to be educated to a fairly high minimum standard in the “hard” sciences – biology, chemistry, physics – necessitating an understanding of scientific method. Further experience in the practices of scientific method comes with investigatory participation in clinical research, which is inescapable in medical school and during the postgraduate years of residency training. EVERY American medical doctor is versed in the principles of scientific reasoning, and those of us who have applied our reasoned consideration to the anthropogenic global warming – er, “climate change” – kerfluffle have tended with great reliability to have pronounced it bogus.

    Those of us who’ve been involved in applications for research grant funding – and have had our noses rubbed in the facts about knowingly uttering falsehoods on those applications – hold that the “climate catastrophe” charlatans confabulating the AGW hokum are perpetrating the criminal theft of value by deceit, which is FRAUD, and warrants investigation, indictment, and prosecution as such.

  3. As much as it would be great to have an intelligent and ethical person in the White House, Ben Carson lost me when he revealed his lack of scientific literacy and common sense by endorsing the well-known snake oil MLM scheme, Mannatech, and his continued support of unscientific health, supplements and diet woo.

    Having an MD doesn’t guarantee someone really understands or accepts the scientific method and reasoning.

  4. You lost me at your last uninformed and insulting statement. The fact is that earning an MD very much requires understanding and acceptance of the scientific method and reasoning. One cannot possibly gain acceptance to, much less survive and graduate from, a medical school without such knowledge and acceptance, and extensive knowledge at that. Unless you have been there and saw something I have never seen (at my own school or in my forty years of educationa and work in Medicine), I suggest you refrain from such inanity in the future.

    Now, as to Doctor Carson’s relationship with Mannatech, I believe he has put that to rest at the last debate. But the fact is, lots of MD’s endorse unproven (and occasionally, even disproven) treatments, supplements, etc. I believe the most prominent “snake oil,” as you call it, is “medical marijuana.” That is really popular stuff, even among reputable MD’s. But all of the “evidence” the legalization heads can provide are anecdotal reports of “nothing working until I toked up and, suddenly, I was pain and disease free.” Any true research that even attempts to follow the scientific method and reasoning shows nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada. Placebo effect at best and probably just the buzz at worst.

    Thank you for reading my response.
    J. W. Scott Wallace, M.D., F.A.P.A.

  5. But all of the “evidence” the legalization heads can provide are anecdotal reports of “nothing working until I toked up and, suddenly, I was pain and disease free.” Any true research that even attempts to follow the scientific method and reasoning shows nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada. Placebo effect at best and probably just the buzz at worst.

    How much in the way of clinical trials addressing proof-of-efficacy have been permitted by our federal government given that marijuana is a Schedule I substance?

    With it understood that “the law is a ass – a idiot,” we might hesitate to give the therapeutic marijuana advocates the Dickens quite so readily.

    I’m not eager to leap on the leafy stuff as a panacea, but I’m certainly amenable to having patients attempt a “clinical trial-of-one” to determine each particular individual’s response to the herbage. We certainly follow such a course of action in every case where a more conventional treatment measure is introduced (not all of which produce more than “Placebo effect at best”).

  6. I get a little tired of that old saw about the government “not permitting” clinical research involving marijuana. “The government” has sponsored and encouraged such research since at least the ’70’s. There are plenty of those clinical trials, and the results are absolutely underwhelming. The “clinical trial of one” is the very anecdotal report which leads to snake oil purveyance.

    But we are wandering off topic. The fact is that Ben Carson, M.D., is a renowned and knowledgeable scientist and researcher.

  7. “I get a little tired of that old saw about the government ‘not permitting’ clinical research involving marijuana. ‘The government’ has sponsored and encouraged such research since at least the ’70’s.”

    The old Schedule I saw still cuts, and the reliability of politically ordained (and not uncommonly predetermined) research is altogether too commonly illusory. Are we not mindful here of government-sponsored and encouraged “climate science” over the past three decades, emphasis on an enlightening review of the first Climategate tranche contents?

    That aside, however, is it not sufficient to observe the profound adverse effects (primary, secondary, tertiary…TNTC) of The War on (Some) Drugs having criminalized the production, trafficking in, and voluntary “recreational” use of the substances listed in Schedule I?

    All of this to fail persistently in keeping addictive personality disorder cases from getting their popskull cheaply, reliably, with known standards of potency and purity, and obliterating the obscene profit margins that have enriched criminals, politicians, and corrupt officers of government.

    Pardon the redundancy.

    Dr. Carson’s reputation as “a renowned and knowledgeable scientist and researcher” is granted, and argues for his ability to critically evaluate the methodical rigor (or, rather, the abysmal lack thereof) manifest in the Cargo Cult science that has been foisted upon the entire world by the politically-anointed “consensus on climate.”

    Good for him. Shall we apply something of the same hard-headed sense to the question of marijuana as some patients’ equivalent of chicken soup and hot buttered rum?

Comments are closed.