Climate policy continues to change

[SgtSpiderMan]

I put the text in font size 7 and bold and he still missed it.

You're trolling right?

Got it, so it's not about a narrative.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Another Spidey fake challenge. If they didn't say "end times" then it doesn't mean that they are predicting, with models, catastrophe, therefore what you said is a lie! PROVE SOMEONE USED THET PHRASE END TIMES OR IT'S NOT TRUE!!!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Another Spidey fake challenge. If they didn't say "end times" then it doesn't mean that they are predicting, with models, catastrophe, therefore what you said is a lie! PROVE SOMEONE USED THET PHRASE END TIMES OR IT'S NOT TRUE!!!

I already quoted the OP, again just because you can't deal with facts doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[JinSun]

Got it, so it's not about a narrative.

This is not a difficult concept. If the general consensus among Americans becomes, "science is democratic," at what point do big government and corporations realize that they can use that to push agendas and control the narrative? Who's to say that's not currently happening with regard to other topics?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Though I fully believe in climate change and other environmental problems, I'd like to point out how idiotic it is to say 99.99% of scientists do anything.

Science is not democratic.

No, but it does operate by scientific consensus, which is a very different, and relevant, thing.

 

[OldJourno]

No, I don't. I challenge the OP to show that any climate scientist has said "end times", not a one of them have. Sure, it's possible they were using hyperbole, but I really doubt it.

Climate scientists have warned about droughts, heat waves, & floods. They've also said there may be migrations because food may become scarce in some areas. That's hardly "end of days" stuff.

As the OP, I'm baffled that you think I said anything about "end times" or "end of days" stuff.
As a matter of fact, I challenge you to show where I said that.

 

[JinSun]

No, but it does operate by scientific consensus, which is a very different, and relevant, thing.

That's true, however, we need to be careful about what is considered consensus, and what is being pushed on us for different purposes. I did state in my original post that climate change is not something I feel this applies to, I only wished to point out the insanity in implying that just because most scientists say something is true, that we should take it at face value.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Consensus is more or less synonymous with democracy...





... neither are synonyms of fact and truth.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

As the OP, I'm baffled that you think I said anything about "end times" or "end of days" stuff.
As a matter of fact, I challenge you to show where I said that.

I've already quoted what you said. Still waiting on your evidence.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

That's true, however, we need to be careful about what is considered consensus, and what is being pushed on us for different purposes. I did state in my original post that climate change is not something I feel this applies to, I only wished to point out the insanity in implying that just because most scientists say something is true, that we should take it at face value.

Scientists don't say things are true, they use science to prove something is true. A narrative is only going to work on the uninformed.

 

[JinSun]

Scientists don't say things are true, they use science to prove something is true. A narrative is only going to work on the uninformed.

You're still not getting it. You're operating under the mindset that all scientists are the purest people, that somehow because they're rational and progressive they're free from want or corruption. Or maybe you're forgetting that many campuses, laboratories, etc. receive government funding? You're either not getting what I'm saying or you're arguing for the sake of arguing, but either way I'm confused.

As for narratives only working on the uninformed, PLEASE! Narratives work on anyone, especially these days with the huge amount of information at our finger tips. How easy would it be for a few major media networks to publish stories on something that isn't true? Suddenly the populous is informed right? They have the control, because they have the information right?

But where is that information coming from, and why is it being presented?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You're still not getting it. You're operating under the mindset that all scientists are the purest people, that somehow because they're rational and progressive they're free from want or corruption. Or maybe you're forgetting that many campuses, laboratories, etc. receive government funding? You're either not getting what I'm saying or you're arguing for the sake of arguing, but either way I'm confused.

As for narratives only working on the uninformed, PLEASE! Narratives work on anyone, especially these days with the huge amount of information at our finger tips. How easy would it be for a few major media networks to publish stories on something that isn't true? Suddenly the populous is informed right? They have the control, because they have the information right?

But where is that information coming from, and why is it being presented?

Certainly not suggesting that scientists aren't without corruption. When someone produces a bunk report it's torn to shreds under peer review.

I'm sure there are networks that publish things that they know aren't true, or sensationalize things to get ratings/sales.

The media is never the best place to get scientific information.

 

[JinSun]

Certainly not suggesting that scientists aren't without corruption. When someone produces a bunk report it's torn to shreds under peer review.

I'm sure there are networks that publish things that they know aren't true, or sensationalize things to get ratings/sales.

The media is never the best place to get scientific information.

Then I'm not sure what your argument is. My point has been that this isn't necessarily happening now, but it could potentially happen, and we need to be vigilant and use critical thinking as opposed to believing that science is democratic, as an example.

 

[Conager]

If the US government stops funding science and the rest of the world continues the research, does that put the US at an advantage for saving all that money?

Yes, it does.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Then I'm not sure what your argument is. My point has been that this isn't necessarily happening now, but it could potentially happen, and we need to be vigilant and use critical thinking as opposed to believing that science is democratic, as an example.

I agree. My only point is that I don't believe a narrative works on those who are informed. Feel free to disagree with me on that.

 

[Conager]

I agree. My only point is that I don't believe a narrative works on those who are informed. Feel free to disagree with me on that.

Who informs the "informed?"

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Who informs the "informed?"

Science.

 

[Conager]

Not true. http://www.newsweek.com/even-middle-ages-people-didnt-think-earth-was-flat-420775

“With extraordinary few exceptions, no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat,” historian Jeffrey Burton Russell wrote in 1997. “A round Earth appears at least as early as the sixth century B.C. with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere.” By the first century A.D., “the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans.”






Also not true. http://www.astronomytrek.com/who-discovered-the-earth-moves-around-the-sun/


"Copernicus (1473-1543) was not the first person to claim that the Earth rotates around the Sun. In Western civilization, ancient Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos is generally credited with being the first person to propose a Sun-centred astronomical hypothesis of the universe (heliocentric). At that time, however, Aristarchus’s heliocentrism gained few supporters and 18 centuries would then pass before Renaissance astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus produced a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system."

The world came into existance in the 3rd century?

I did not know that.

 

[OldJourno]

I've already quoted what you said. Still waiting on your evidence.

Evidence that you can't read? I guess this will serve as proof.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That's true, however, we need to be careful about what is considered consensus, and what is being pushed on us for different purposes. I did state in my original post that climate change is not something I feel this applies to, I only wished to point out the insanity in implying that just because most scientists say something is true, that we should take it at face value.

Usually, we should, provided the scientists saying it are experts in the relevant field. (Pay no attention to physicists and anthropologists signing a climate-change-denial statement.) And, usually, that is not a judgment on which much depends anyway -- most of what scientists have to say is of no more than purely intellectual interest to the rest of us, when we can understand it. This sort of question only comes up in connection with those few scientific theories that have some implication for somebody's bottom line, religious beliefs or political ideology.

 

[JinSun]

Usually, we should, provided the scientists saying it are experts in the relevant field. And, usually, that is not a judgment on which much depends anyway -- most of what scientists have to say is of no more than purely intellectual interest to the rest of us, when we can understand it. This sort of question only comes up in connection with those few scientific theories that have some implication for somebody's bottom line, religious beliefs or political ideology.

I agree, yet despite that I believe climate change is not one of these issues despite it's relevance to economic infrastructure.

 

[phrodeau]

Really? What private entity is going to build the next CERN?

The US doesn't need to advance particle physics any more, since the Soviet Union collapsed. The SSC was a total waste of money, and should never have been approved, no matter how much the Texas Congressional delegation wanted it in their home state.

Those scientists interested in particle physics can just take jobs overseas now, along with all that US investor's money.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So maybe it's not settled after all, even though 99.9 percent of scientists say we're all going to die unless we pay a whole lot more for electricity
Maybe under Trump I can use my air conditioner this summer

Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold

By James Varney, RealClearInvestigations
December 31, 2016
In the world of climate science, the skeptics are coming in from the cold.
Researchers who see global warming as something less than a planet-ending calamity believe the incoming Trump administration may allow their views to be developed and heard. This didn’t happen under the Obama administration, which denied that a debate even existed. Now, some scientists say, a more inclusive approach – and the billions of federal dollars that might support it – could be in the offing.
“Here’s to hoping the Age of Trump will herald the demise of climate change dogma, and acceptance of a broader range of perspectives in climate science and our policy options,” Georgia Tech scientist Judith Curry wrote this month at her popular Climate Etc. blog.

Though I fully believe in climate change and other environmental problems, I'd like to point out how idiotic it is to say 99.99% of scientists do anything.

Science is not democratic.

Once upon a time the known world believed the world was flat. Once upon a time the world believed we were the center of the universe. You set a dangerous precedent when you allow science to become majority rules. It becomes that much easier to control the narrative.

Not true. http://www.newsweek.com/even-middle-ages-people-didnt-think-earth-was-flat-420775

“With extraordinary few exceptions, no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat,” historian Jeffrey Burton Russell wrote in 1997. “A round Earth appears at least as early as the sixth century B.C. with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere.” By the first century A.D., “the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans.”






Also not true. http://www.astronomytrek.com/who-discovered-the-earth-moves-around-the-sun/


"Copernicus (1473-1543) was not the first person to claim that the Earth rotates around the Sun. In Western civilization, ancient Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos is generally credited with being the first person to propose a Sun-centred astronomical hypothesis of the universe (heliocentric). At that time, however, Aristarchus’s heliocentrism gained few supporters and 18 centuries would then pass before Renaissance astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus produced a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system."

Good fawkin' Jehovah...



If you can find just one tiny example, then what 99.99% of what everyone else believes was not, in fact, the consensus/truth of the day!



Think about that before you post again Sgt St-st-st-stutter. Start with the OP...

I did start with that, which is why you came in and made a personal attack instead of sticking to the topic.

No, I don't. I challenge the OP to show that any climate scientist has said "end times", not a one of them have. Sure, it's possible they were using hyperbole, but I really doubt it.

Climate scientists have warned about droughts, heat waves, & floods. They've also said there may be migrations because food may become scarce in some areas. That's hardly "end of days" stuff.

We have the OP, we have the post he quoted and we have his repeated insistence that he was responding to, even quoted, the OP...

Fucking hilarious. I wish miles was here at times like this.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I already quoted the OP, again just because you can't deal with facts doesn't mean they don't exist.

Funny shit...

HAPPY NEW YEAR LITIZENS!

Just remember mental midgets walk among you....

 

[water505]

The man made global warming scam is in the late stages of the "vaccines cause autism" hoax. Compared with other issues fewer Americans just aren't that concerned about it and in a few weeks it will stop being a federal priority. Regulations, government propaganda and research dollars are going bye bye. People will still cling to it like slavery in the South after the Civil War until only a few celebrities and wackos are left. I'll bet within ten years it will be the answer to a trivia question and relegated to siitcom material.