wiyosaya
Posts: 11,572 +12,669
An interesting opinion piece on the subject - https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/5469235-trump-administration-environmental-assault/
Arctic ice melt is slowing down, but climate change could soon come back biting
- Thread starter Alfonso Maruccia
- Start date
wiyosaya
Posts: 11,572 +12,669
So your over-generalization is ok, but mine is not. Got it.
Also I only said that this is a STRONG incentive not that all scientists succumb to it. And I say that as a research scientist that sees this every day at work. What is your source?
HEY! It's 1989 and Rush Limbaugh is back from the pit!
Get some new material man.
When you use the consensus argument you lose all scientific credibility. (and it's a logical fallacy)
Science does not work by consensus even though journalism majors think it does.
Science is make better by questioning the commonly held beliefs.
Publishing is often more about the hot topic supported by the preferred theory of the random peer reviewer than being a good study. (as someone with multiple scientific pubs it is super annoying)
A great example of this is when the "find your own lived experience truth" took hold in academic journals in MATH. They actually published papers on how 2 + 2 does NOT equal 4. (and no it wasn't using complicated math it was redefining what 2 mean half way through solving the equation like some post modernist lit studies undergrad).
It's honestly a bit depressing being a scientist in a post-modern, hyper-politicized, ends-justify-the-means world.
And the consensus is set when the common held beliefs are verified.
And the consensus is 96%
Are you confused by "beliefs" and verified facts? Maybe?
You have yet to disprove anything you believe is false.
It's like your own private cult.
Pretending to know the information you spew is correct falls apart when you tell it to others.
And I'm quite sure that is the consensus here at TS. And it's easy to verify.
EVs, climate, renewable energy? You are terribly uninformed, yet seem proud of it.
From there, refer to the 4th line of this response.
Alejandro E. Camacho is Chancellor’s Professor of Law at University of California, Irvine, and a member scholar of the Center for Progressive Reform.
As always, the loudest and the most hysterical screams always come from those who are one, or combination, of:
1. Dwell in social sciences
2. Highly neurotic
3. Highly agreeable (to the mass)
4. Do not have future investment at all in term of reproduction. Who still have reproduction organs but chose to use it exclusively for recreation instead.
5. Miserable, longing to exit from the gene pools, but will not be happy until everybody else follow him/her.
On the other side, those who dwell in hard sciences, engineerings, are spending time and energy instead to improve every process, every material, every product, to minimize enviromental impact. Also to invent ideas, things which may work as better replacement if required. The awareness to improve has been there for decades regardless of the current climate change debate. Which in all hard science and engineering point of view, is inconclusive. In contrast to those listed in 5 points above.
There is no "consensus"! That's a media propaganda term.
That % is simply a made up number to push a narrative the media. It has no basis in reality. Scientists don't fill out polls on what they believe or even what their current studies are. If you just stop and actually think about how one would get that number you can see it was just grabbed out of the air and repeated by journalists.
Sorry your confirmation bias is too high to even consider other facts. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you any more.
I read your whole post but will re-read it later with the appropriate Twilight Zone theme music.
In the meantime, something that baffles you, I guess. Proof (again).
But you were right that my 96% number was off.
From NASA:
Do scientists agree on climate change? - NASA Science
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the
science.nasa.gov
What fool would believe they are all in the same conspiracy and not one whistleblower?
They are polled CONSTANTLY! How the hell do you think the science community consensus on anything is gathered? On a huge number of subjects! Seriously!!??And how would you know? You haven't given any.
Best choice you have made in a while.
Last edited:
wiyosaya
Posts: 11,572 +12,669
Apologies.
Consider this, however. If we are strictly speaking about climate change, and the research were driven by financial incentives, would it not be logical to assume that we would see more research papers that debunk climate change? Yet searching using the normal search engines for "research debunking climate change" the most results that appear are articles that dispel climate change myths that are not supported by science and scientists. Such as this one - https://www.sciencenewstoday.org/global-warming-explained-myths-vs-facts
And before Trump kills all government web sites that support a truthful analysis of Climate Change, there is this NASA site https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/ that appears to be well-researched and explains the origin of at least some of the reasoning behind why so many scientists think climate change is real.
I don't doubt that you have read, and maybe even witnessed in person, research where the researchers have dubious connections to entities that would prefer the research they are supporting come out in their favor. Greed is a strong driver for many.
However, I am not aware of research for or against climate change that appears to have been supported by an entity that would benefit from that for/against result.
The vast majority of climate change research supports that it is happening, little, to none supports that it is not happening.
So you've witnessed research performed by dubious researchers. I think we can agree that such dubious researchers exist, and we both wish were not so.
Unfortunately, we have to live with it for now, and as I see it, research has to be given a thorough read and the researchers themselves need to be investigated.
Warming oceans and air will produce more snow in higher latitudes and make greenbelts out of cold deserts. It will make agriculture possible in higher latitude regions of the earth. Humanity will adapt.
captaincranky
Posts: 20,423 +9,389
This may be true but "rumor has it", (via articles I've read), that Florida's well to do are moving to higher ground inland.
Not to mention some western states have set all time records for high temps. (117+F).
You might consider comparing average yearly wildfire acreage consumption, rainfall per storm stats, and city night summer low temperatures, before you patently dismiss climate change as "hogwash".
Besides, it's a known fact that climatologists and weather forecasters, like to hear themselves talk, almost as much as PC gamers do.
And then there's this; nobody'sc (that I'm aware of), said Florida going to disappear by "next year". The climate "doom and gloom" projections I've read, have all been at the earliest 2050, and well beyond.
Once upon a time we blew a hole in the ozone layer, in part due to the CFCs in cheap hairspray. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
Then there's "VOCs". But it's likely more pressing to turn our attentions to more important issues like whose VGAs are burning up the most connectors. After all this is a tech site.
On a side note, too many people rely on their belief systems, as opposed to their common sense and intellect when evaluating circumstances, and their potential future ramifications. There is also such a thing as histrionic personality disorder. It can affect climatologists and PC gamers alike. Then there's rampant gullibility in the US population at large, along with the absolute inability to determine lies from fact.. How else would you explain the current "buffoon in chief "? I would judge anything it says to the effect of climate change being a "hoax", would make it real by extension.
Last edited:
They have convinced themselves that getting an education is "indoctrination" because it teaches people how to think. They have waged war against colleges and the educated because when someone is taught how to determine lies from fact, it opposes their authoritarian view points.
They want you to be dumb so they can continue to feed you bs. The problem is so many folks have fell for it hook and sinker. And while they rail on the educated for being indoctrinated and "uninformed", its actually them that have been brainwashed and dont have the ability to legitimately figure out truth from falsehood. Instead they parrot what their leader or favorite influencer told them to say as they cant come to any meaningful conclusions other than the occasional confirmation bias.
wiyosaya
Posts: 11,572 +12,669
All excellent points, IMO.As I see it, there's one other pertinent point. Some of them have also been programmed by organized religion and if it's outside of the bounds of what they have been programmed to think, then it cannot be true because "My religious leader said so."
For instance, I once heard a clip of Mitch McConnell starting "I don't believe in climate change because God said he would never smite the Earth again." The only trouble with that, as I see it, is god never said, "I will prevent humanity from smiting the Earth." Apparently, the programming prevents such people from seeing that aspect.
captaincranky
Posts: 20,423 +9,389
All that said, somehow this administration has managed to synonymize "educated", with "woke". It's that simple. Oh wait, I know. It's through constant repetition of imaginary negative traits associated with the term, "woke".
And now, I'm going to use the modern colloquial catchphrase, "trust me" **, to entice you to read this Wiki page on "propaganda techniques": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
** "Trust me" is abbreviated propaganda in and of itself, I realize that. But seriously, you don't want to miss this. It explains pretty much everything on the techniques of herding the human mind into the pen of a common belief system.
captaincranky
Posts: 20,423 +9,389
There are two factors that separate humans from chimps. Th genus "Homo" was named before that of chimpanzee(s), which is "Pan". The second is the fan that "Pan", carries 48 chromosomes, while the genus "Homo" carries 46. Accordingly, we can't interbreed with them. Thank "god" for that. ay? Human's #2 chromosome has fused, which apparently imbues man with being, "the son of god", as opposed to being considered a delicacy as "bush meat".
As I see it, there's one other pertinent point. Some of them have also been programmed by organized religion and if it's outside of the bounds of what they have been programmed to think, then it cannot be true because "My religious leader said so."
For instance, I once heard a clip of Mitch McConnell starting "I don't believe in climate change because God said he would never smite the Earth again." The only trouble with that, as I see it, is god never said, "I will prevent humanity from smiting the Earth." Apparently, the programming prevents such people from seeing that aspect.
As far as religion goes, I find it to beyond unbearable, implausible, and flat out stupid. The only thing Judaeo-Christianity has accomplished is produce the "ten commandments", which provides the basis for our legal system. The question that should be asked, but never is, "was Moses searched for a hammer and chisel after he came back from that mountain"? Along with, "what was you ulterior motive" for writing that"?
It's provable that 1% of the population has more money than most of the other 99% combined. However, what's never addressed is that 1% of the population knows more about a particular subject, than the other 99% combined. We refer to them as "scientists". The gross irony is, that the stupid and uninformed 99%, always thinks they know more than those, (now deemed "woke") `1% of that class of elites.
Which brings us back to climate change. I see Christian camps being washed away by major floods. Floods that, "could never happen". But then again, I tend to watch the news, while ignoring the bible completely. I say "good riddance" to these propaganda clinics and their attendees, and shed not a single tear. But that's the beauty of being an atheist and a low grade sociopath, you only have to answer to yourself, and not this year's imaginary deity.
A quick google found that from 1993 to 2014, the US government reports show that annual spending on climate change science research grants grew from $1.31 billion to $2.66 billon, for a total of $42.49 billion.
To get a research grant from the government you send a proposal to the EPA on one of these topics listed on the EPA website (https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/climate-change-research-grants) text copied below:
EPA funds climate change research grants to improve knowledge of the health and environment effects of climate change, and provide sustainable solutions for communities to effectively manage and reduce the impacts of a changing climate.
EPA’s supports research focusing on a few important aspects of how climate change affects air, water, the environment and human health:
- Investigating the impact of climate change on air pollution gases and particles, water quality and ecosystems
- Understanding the underlying factors contributing to changes air pollution and water quality
- Using modeling tools to better understand the impacts of extreme events on air and water quality as well as provide better modeling tools to predict air, water and ecosystem characteristics under a changing climate.
There are no "is climate change happening" money as that is an assumption. "Create better modeling tools (computer simulations) on what extreme events could happen
under a changing climate" is funded under bullet 3. So a researcher proposes then builds a complex computer model that shows (for instance) that the poles warming 10 degrees melts the ice caps and floods costal cities. He hasn't proven the poles will warm, just what will probably happen if they do, assuming the computer model is even accurate*. But he got funding which at the very least helps keep his job at the university and may actually fund his salary. He also has a nice study to publish. And the media will take this study and talk about how it "proves scientifically" all these bad things will happen. Etc.
The research who proposes to investigate if climate change is happening is rejected and has to find another source of funding for her research. These exist but are much smaller than the billions of taxpayer money. Then you have to try and publish a study that threatens all of the climate studies current and future funding. And equally important the ego/prestige/reputation of all those scientists that are likely peer reviewing your paper. It's easy to say a study didn't do enough to disprove theirs or must have made a mistake in data collect etc.
There is also the prestige of large grants at universities. The head researcher of a funded lab with millions to spend is a rock star in the academic world. Peer review is done by humans and big important scientists tend to be academic journal editors not reviewers.
My field is one of the few that is not grant funded so I happily get avoid this but I definitely see this influence in most research departments.
*Computer modeling global systems is extremely difficult. We don't have complete and perfect data to feed into the computer and we don't know how to model all of the interactions between all of the various systems in the environment and we probably don't even know all of the systems at play. I'm not dumping on the researcher for this it's just hard. I mean think about how difficult it is to predict the general weather more than a few days out or what direction a hurricane will take as similar complex modeling problems.
captaincranky
Posts: 20,423 +9,389
After the "publish or perish", desperation and rant subsides, it would probably be better to rely on adages and established statistics. In other words, 2024 was the hottest year on record, since records began to be kept.
So, is there climate change or not? My simple, not anywhere near as ego driven mind, concludes that, "where there's smoke, there's fire", (or almost certainly fire to come).
BTW, the forecast high for Phoenix AZ, Aug., 30th, today is 106 F. Although, PA & NJ are enjoying lower than average temps. A great day for the beach.
As long as you are consistent and believe in global cooling on record cool years.
The other issue is if a change in climate is in fact human's fault. And the, if so, is the cost to stop it is worth it. Everything in life is tradeoffs.
Odd, since the studies and readings are constantly updating, and while definite patterns form, different results are not only pretty much constant, but expected.
Overall, In my opinion, I would say you are finally giving both sides a chance. Those are the things climatologists face, but if you look, the predictions and results are surprisingly accurate in the last 25 years. Why?
Check this out. It's a great read because it's not a long winded write-up, but gets right to the point. It covers how we have gradually achieved greater accuracy of predictions dating back to ice core readings.
10 Groundbreaking Climate Science Discoveries That Shaped Our Understanding
Explore key breakthroughs in climate science, from ice cores to satellites. Discover how these advancements shape our understanding of climate change and guide action. Learn more.
epochsandechoes.com
Last edited:
captaincranky
Posts: 20,423 +9,389
I believe in no such thing. But FWIW, the earth is cooling. This is due to the fact that the earth's core is in the majority, molten iron. The sun doesn't present us with enough energy at the surface to either mitigate or reverse it. At present we obvious lack the ability to change that, and it's doubtful we ever will.
You hurt my feelings. You apparently think I walk outside on a particularly hot day, and do a "chicken little", by summarily deciding climate change is upon us.
What I do, is summarily dismiss the lunatics wearing tin foil hats on both sides of the issue, then watch the weather reports. Let's face it, weather persons like to hear themselves talk as much as you, I, or anyone else. However, they do have the statistics that back up what they're saying. The "hottest years on record", seem to be getting closer and closer together. Ignoring whatever their personal biases may be, they're not lying about the statistics.
I freely concede that my ability to tolerate heat is far lower than it was 5 decades ago. But, I'm not basing any beliefs about climate change predicated on aging on my part.
Would you dispute that there is such a thing as, "the urban heat island effect". It's blatantly obvious here in da hood. Hell, it's 5 degrees hotter here overnight, than it is at PHL, a scant few miles away. I'm sure you understand the concept of "evaporative cooling". Trees provide it, and we've borrowed the technique to cool greenhouses. So, take the amount of asphalt, brick, and concrete today, and compare it to that of a century ago. I think you'll agree there's orders of multiples more today.
So, is it worth the cost to mitigate the effects of the (presumptive, or if it even exists) climate change? I guess that depends who you ask. some billionaire, or one of the poor slobs struggling to pay their summer electric bills. Because if these billionaires actually spent the money to do something about the (whether, real, perceived, or if it exists) climate change, they would, in effect, be paying our electric bills. And "god" knows, we couldn't have that, now could we?
To sum this rant up, about the only thing you can believe from he TV these days are the weather reports**. The rest is spin, misinformation, and outright, bold faced, lies.
Here's a funny, (but entirely true), story. Our "fearful leader" didn't like last months jobs report. So he did the only thing a self loathing psychopath could do, he shot the messenger.
From out of the mouth of an (ostensibly) newly hired spokesperson, all of a sudden, the US economy grew 3%. Well, if, or maybe that's true, one still has to wonder how much of that "growth", came out of our savings and retirement accounts.
OK, so that's enough of the point, counterpoint, verbal fencing for me, at least for tonight. Time to hang up my foil and wash some 50 odd cat bowls.
** Although I do tend to interpret, "precipitation possibility 50%", as, "it might rain, or it might not".
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
Microsoft is cutting 3,200 Xbox jobs and spinning off four game studios- Daniel Sims replied
