Do you believe that Mexican and Russian climate scientists are smarter than their American counterparts?

Question

One AGW denier asks:

"When will American Scientists catch up to their Russian and Mexican counter parts?"

Do AGW 'skeptics' believe that Mexican and Russian climate scientists are more advanced on the subject than their American (and British, etc.) peers?

How about AGW proponents - do you feel that the Mexican and Russian climate scientists who are predicting an impending cold period (and possibly mini ice age) are ahead of their American (and British, etc.) counterparts?

Answer 1

I think it's extremely amusing that so many of the deniers have been telling us that global warming is a scam created by "socialists" who can never be trusted, yet they're perfectly willing to listen to those "commie" Russians if they tell them what they want to hear.

Answer 2

Wouldn't this be a ethics question? Based on creed and/or cultural. I might think about rephrasing.

Answer 3

Smarter no--- different pre-conceived notions  ---  YES

However I would say that the Russian software programmers are better. What I saw them do in Russia with "junk" old computers(back in the 1990s) was pretty amazing.

Answer 4

Russia and Mexico are very corrupt.  To think that the corruption has not reached the sciences is naive at best.

Answer 5

It's not a question of who but of what, and the what that is still missing is direct, tangible proof that humans caused the 20th century warming.

Answer 6

It all depends on what data they use and what methods.  After all each group of people are running models which are constantly being tweaked due to many factors.  There is no single all encompassing climate model that is accurate.

I'd be a bit more skeptical on Mexican scientists being "smarter" however, if there is one thing that has been proven time and time again, that is that Russia has some of the best physicists and advanced science engineers.  Its just that the Soviet Mentality still exists to a degree and much of their research is still not fully public.

To say though that one nations scientists are "smarter" is a very broad and general statement that really needs refining.

Answer 7

Do you believe that Mexican and Russian climate scientists are smarter than their American counterparts?

After reading some of the post from the like of Bob, Amy L, and well yes you, I would say, probably so.

Answer 8

I can't see the deniers question, as he had me blocked. However, I do not believe Mexican or Russian climate scientists are more advanced than the U.S. or our European counterparts. This sounds like another of the deniers "preaching to the choir" questions. He offers nothing except denial and a twisting of facts of a science he doesn't understand.  

Answer 9

I disagree with Jello's statement that American scientists lag behind or are overly political. All scientists have to be political to some extent as anyone ever involved in academia should understand. That's not to say they are the driving force in global warming, that is the full-time politicians. I wouldn't denigrate any scientist based on where he was born or where he works, Einstein wasn't American by birth and he was one of the great geniuses of the last couple of centuries.

The Mexican scientist in question only brought up a concern held by many who think the sun is a more important factor in our climate than the IPCC reports claim. And a blank sun with no sunspots has often led to prolonged cooling. The coldest part of the Little Ice Age were when the sun had no spots at all for a number of years.

I agree with Jim Z as to the quality of American scientists in general, and the force being put on them to endorse global warming theory. How inconvenient for warmers that the Earth continues to fail to do as they requested, getting cooler again this year. The southern hemisphere is undergoing a winter as cool as last year, which means the north will soon be doing the same. Where is the warming when you really need it? Now we'll have to burn more fossil fuels, but it still won't cause warming outside of your own home.

Concernedcitizen, the last time I checked Russia was not 'Soviet' anymore, nor communist. The fact is that most of those rallying to global warming have socialist goals in mind and what better way to implement that agenda than total control over the world's energy output? The same people who fight against oil and gas now fight against solar plants in Nevada and wind distribution in California. So what is the real goal? It's clearly not to fight CO2 or the petroleum industry.

Answer 10

Each is smarter than the other

.

In their own ways

.

Kind of like the school you go to is the best one

.

Answer 11

When the cold war ended, some very surprising things came to light. It turned out that the Russian military and sciences weren't nearly as advanced or capable as many in the US feared.  Their isolation from the free world had imposed an unexpected (to them, at least) negative consequence.

A nations scientific prowess isn't something that can be established in just a few years.  It takes decades to establish quality schools, train teachers, produce text books, and attract the best minds into various fields.  This doesn't mean that there aren't any good scientists in Russia, but anyone suggesting that Russia is somehow superior to the US (or even more ludicrous, Russian scientists are less corrupt/political than US scientists) in their basic scientific research capabilities is simply ignorant.

Answer 12

I suspect they are similar.  Certainly American scientists have discovered far more important things.  Like all scientists, they can be extremely reluctant to change their beliefs.  When an idea gets entrenched, new evidence is often not examined to the extent that it should be.  Old ideas die hard. This is human nature and I am sure there is very little difference in Mexicans or Russians.  I know of one instance that Russians are more willing to examine new evidence and that is in regards to the theories of petroleum formation.  It baffles me that most American petroleum geologist practically ignore the abiotic theories in favor of the theories they learned in school even though there is enough evidence to throw those theories into serious doubt.

American scientists do not fall lock step into the alarmist camp as some pretend although there is an undeniable political movement to force them into that attitude or face the consequences, which might be loss of funding, shunning, and redicule.  Isn't it interesting that that is almost exclusively a leftist tactic.  If truth is on your side, you don't need to resort to that sort of thing, but if you are pushing a poltical agenda, then it may be necessary.