After the fiasco with the appointment of Prof. Gabi Avital who denied evolution and global warming, this time a person was chosen who has an impressive record of articles in the field of life sciences
The examiners committee of the Civil Service Commission unanimously approved this morning the appointment of Prof. Zacharias Madar as the Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Education. The committee's approval was preceded by an examination of several candidates for the position and a consultation procedure with the Minister of Science and Technology regarding the selected candidate.
As I recall, the position of chief scientist at the Ministry of Education became vacant with the dismissal of Prof. Gabi Avital, who in interviews he gave to the media denied two of the cornerstones of science - evolution and global warming, in both cases for religious reasons. This time it was decided to choose a professor with a background in the field of life sciences, whose evolution would at least be a little harder for him to deny. In particular when he studies the genetics of diabetes.
Among the committee's reasons for selecting Prof. Madar for the position of Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Education, his high involvement in the field of education, teacher training, curriculum development and promotion of the teaching field was noted. The committee also noted that the professor has high-level academic skills, also in the international field. The committee also referred to his extensive activity to reduce gaps among the student population in the periphery and mainly, in the field of science studies.
Prof. Zachariah Mader, a resident of Rehovot, has a graduate degree in agricultural sciences, qualified degrees, doctor and professor within the department of agricultural biochemistry.
Prof. Medar was, among other things, teaching at the Kiryat HaHakunin School, Gaza - Netivot, served as the chairman of the academic council of the Hamed HaDrom College, served as a lecturer in the Department of Agricultural Biochemistry, director of the School of Nutritional Sciences at the Hebrew University, director of the science teaching laboratories in Kiryat Malachi, member On the Joint Program Committee for Jewish Education in the Diaspora on behalf of the Jewish Agency, a member of the Committee for the Selection of a Ministry of Science Fellow for Scientific Creativity, a member of the National Biotechnology Committee, a member of the National Council for Research and Development and more.
Prof. Madar taught for 13 years in the upper divisions, was a co-author of curricula and textbooks, lectured as part of teacher training courses, served as a member of the Higher Steering Committee for Education in the cities of Kiryat Malachi and Rehovot, served as a member of the committee for determining educational content at Tel Hai College, and more.
Prof. Madar's publications include 146 publications in international scientific press.
24 תגובות
Pay attention to Kobi1's blatant attempt to deceive, who compares in response 14 the list of the signatories of the statement (32 in number) from the list of the national scientific academies (whose number can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_academies) with a completely different list of academies that does not belong to the matter because it also includes regional academies (which were not consulted at all for the formulation of the statement).
how do you say? A liar is a liar is a liar.
Avigdor, the tobacco companies also funded studies that blamed the spring flower allergy for causing lung cancer.
Dotan:
Probably!
Avigdor is right and Nature is wrong.
Maybe you will open your own scientific newspaper - let's see who wants to publish with you!
Avigdor is right about Wikipedia.
There is William Connolly's famous mica
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/10/14/global-warming-propagandist-slapped-down/
Yehuda:
On behalf of the entire nation, I hope you stop acting like a troll
Avigdor:
Just don't let the facts confuse you!
http://www.haaretz.co.il/captain/pages/ShArtCaptain.jhtml?contrassID=11&subContrassID=0&itemNo=658398
hello my father
Following on from my previous response, below is another site on the subject of global warming
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Dear Avi Blizovsky, an answer to your answer (No. 5)-
You can write that the University of East Anglia did not falsify data, but you cannot change the truth. The fact is that data was falsified. For those who are really interested, here are a number of websites where you can see the documents revealed by the University of East Anglia - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/. The mobilization of all climate scientists for denial and the attempt to cover up the fakes only prove that this is a religious fervor and not a scientific matter. Real science is certainly not a religion, but wherever the unity of opinion is almost complete and any attempt to bring up a different theory is brutally silenced and hurled derogatory epithets, and no factual answer is given, there is reason to suspect motives. In addition, you wrote that global warming is one of the cornerstones of science. I'm still puzzled by the definition. There are scientists just as serious as you who disagree with both the theory that the Earth is warming and the theory that human actions are causing it. The problem is not that you think the scientists should be trusted (and I agree that this is the majority of scientists dealing with the subject - but that the majority of scientists is not a scientific claim. It is a claim that has been weighed against the statement that a billion Chinese are not wrong. This is a distinct logical fallacy of the ad populum type) who believe that the Earth is warming due to the burning of fossil fuels - The problem is the disdain and hatred towards those who don't think like you.
By the way, and this is also for Michael Rothschild - bringing a Wikipedia entry as a scientific claim seems very strange to me. Who exactly wrote the entry and who checked it? Independent scientists or maybe even someone from the University of East Anglia?
On behalf of the entire nation, I sincerely hope that Prof. Zacharias Madar believes in evolution, global warming and the dark mass
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I have no strength for trolls.
For me - the summary in Wikipedia is good enough.
By the way, a large number of Israeli conspiracy theorists throw their gold on Nir Shabiv's theory.
Here is an interesting thing, in this context:
On March 16, 2011, Professor Giora Shabib was hosted on the Galileo website.
He did this following the article he published in Galileo in which he described the theory of his son - Nir Shabiv, and explained why it is so successful.
Professor Giora Shabib is a world-renowned physicist, but that's it - he's a physicist and not a climate scientist.
I contacted Professor Pinchas Alpert from Tel Aviv University and asked him to join the discussion on the Galileo website.
He said it would be difficult to do so for technical reasons but gave me and the Galileo system a list of questions to present to Professor Giora Shabib.
The editor of the site did raise the questions and Gyura Shabiv tried to answer some of them.
The truth is that it was quite embarrassing because one of the questions describes findings that completely (but completely!) disprove the theory and Professor Shabib did not answer it until this writing.
Here is a link to that section of the discussion:
http://forums.ifeel.co.il/forum_posts.asp?TID=197629
There are no proven forgeries - they tried to insert fake names in order to drop the petition.
I showed you that your lists are eye catching.
Why only 30 academies sign out of about 100?
http://www.interacademies.net/Academies/ByCountry.aspx
Why are only 30 percent of climatologists willing to answer surveys?
The Oregon petition is authentic (for the sake of the hearts of the IPCC priests)
hold on -
A good detox always initially causes nausea.
I see no point in continuing the argument with you.
Kobe1:
I wouldn't use the phrase "one of the cornerstones of science" either, but the link you provided is bullshit.
I read the link and felt sick.
It has no answer to the refutations (and certainly not to the proven forgeries in it).
I sure know who and what you are.
You didn't read the link at all
There are answers to all questions
http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php
And since the last link you found, twice as many scientists have signed
And what hypocrisy in the link that asks why only a small percentage are climatologists,
See your lists of "supporting groups" how many climatologists are there?
In general, the vast majority of the IPCC - 80 percent of scientists are not related to climate science at all.
In your lists there are surveys that did - why only between 30 percent and 20 percent of climatologists in general
Ready to answer?
This whole issue is so politically charged. The majority prefers to remain silent
There is a heated debate on the subject
And to call anthropogenic global warming "one of the cornerstones of science" is complete nonsense
Kobe1:
That's fine - after all, using the link you gave, you can see exactly who and what you are.
Here is a small part of what can be said about this link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html
http://ecosalon.com/top-10-global-warming-denier-arguments-debunked-part-2/
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/the-oregon-petition/
Science is not a democracy, if it is proven beyond any doubt that a certain subject exists, even if there are people who believe with all their hearts that it does not exist, it will not help. These are the people who believe in pure capitalism which says that it is forbidden to take care of the environment because it is not something you see in the upcoming balance sheet, when you ask them who should take care of the environment - is it the government, they say God forbid the government is not allowed to spend tax money on nothing. In other words, since it is difficult to quantify the environmental issues, they prefer to ignore them and leave them for the long term with the assumption that in the long term we will all die. And here it is true, from the pollution and warming that are not treated in order not to waste money for example
In the first link, the academies of science of the USA and Canada do not let their members vote on the issue at all.
What a luxury!
And there are at least 67 academies of sciences in the world - why didn't 35 sign?
Why doesn't the most relevant group give a binding statement?
Non-committal statements
American Association of State Climatologists
The thousands of scientists who oppose do not search on Wikipedia, search for them here:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
And something about the "thousands" of scientists who oppose. Apparently, Wikipedia can't find them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Comment 5 is a shame that the editor of a scientific website answers like this.
You sound like a commissar - you have an agenda and you will push it regardless of the truth.
With a wave of your hand you dismiss thousands of scientists and hundreds of peer reviewed studies that state that anthropogenic warming is charlatanism (religion) and not science
Avigdor - Science is not a religion even if you repeat this mantra a billion times. Only what has been reviewed by studies and these two fields have been reviewed by thousands if not millions of studies in the case of evolution. In both cases the theories of the other side are unscientific. In the case of evolution - the Bible and in the case of global warming - an attempt to accuse the scientists of a conspiracy and the disappearance of data, which was not the case in reality, not even at the University of East Anglia. All in all, they are tired of these bothers who are constantly trying to convince them to interpret their findings differently from what objective science requires, so they are simply tired of answering. Now it has been decided that snoozers are answered even at the cost of wasting time so that they do not claim that they were not answered and therefore the scientists are hiding something.
Global warming is one of the cornerstones of science? wonder
A more accurate description of what Gabi Avital said: Gabi Avital also did not deny evolution. What Gavi Avital claimed was that evolution had become a "religion" instead of science, meaning that anyone who tries to assert a counter-argument does not receive an objective answer - and in science an objective answer means refuting the thesis, but is immediately attacked as eccentric, as anti-science, etc. This is not a scientific reaction but a reaction of religious fanatics. And this is exactly what happened to the theories about global warming - they became a religion in the name of which researchers at a university in England are allowed to falsify data and in the name of that religion to turn this theory into one of the cornerstones of science.
Come on, Mabruk. Good luck.
And for that it was said - Amnon Yitzchak, we are all crying.
Well, you learn from mistakes. Finally a real scientist. What's more, admit that the first one was funny. Only with Amnon Yitzchak do you see such things.