Global Warming 2.0 (thread reopened; let's keep it civil)

[Omhra]

This case is for you as a larger issue as religion, race, ideology etc was or is important for some others.

That is a brush-off from the real point I attempted...

Give a good reason why we should not progress past coal and petroleum; In a steady, cautious but pressed pace?

That article about scientific authoritarianism.... concludes like this:

"Climate policy successes will depend on successful processes of democratic governance necessarily involving public participation and support. Scientific authoritarianism, weak or strong, has no role in climate politics."
Then?
So, how is democracy going to act on these issues if not politically, based on the understanding of the demos to the cratus?
Unless he really means to say that ignorance by the masses will give way to "politicians to "run with it" and do as they please, "in [our] best interest"?

He, off-course, shielded himself with a statement that preceded the former:
"(To head off straw-man responses, because I disagree with his political philosophy does not mean that I disagree with any of his policy recommendations.)"...

Vacuous at best and waste of written words in the least.

Oh, I also have a friend who is a "scientist"... bit of a crack-pot really... I promise that I will not use him to represent ALL of science to illustrate how nutty those white-coats are...

Vilification of the scientific community is wearing thin...

Looking mighty informed, in the political aspects, but not in SCIENCE itself eh?
Science is not unattainable.. trust me you can handle it. It is not necessary to take any one's word for it... READ THE SCIENCE and practice it... quit wasting your time on some guy's political review of it.

 

[atuhalpa]

Ignore at your own peril.

http://rs.resalliance.org/2009/02/15/chris-field-says-rate-of-climate-change-faster-than-estimated/

This is all I have to say.

 

[Moonwalker]

http://rs.resalliance.org/2009/02/15/chris-field-says-rate-of-climate-change-faster-than-estimated/

This is all I have to say.

Oh no, climate changes faster than estimated by the climate goods. We are all going to die faster...

 

[atuhalpa]

moonwalker, if you are going to post please spell properly. You lose all your credibility when you don't even have the ability to spell the words in your post correctly.

 

[Moonwalker]

moonwalker, if you are going to post please spell properly. You lose all your credibility when you don't even have the ability to spell the words in your post correctly.

Well, just a small slip while typing. I think you know that it's gods, not goods

 

[lockingtoggle]

Pielcke, the author of the text, complains about scientists expecting to be respected by politicians, but fails to offer an alternative, in arguing with politicians.

You assume that politicians are not doing what they have to. But obviously not everybody shares your view.

There is no obvious reason to believe that our scientists are performing better than our politicians, or the other way around for that matter.

 

[Urwumpe]

You assume that politicians are not doing what they have to. But obviously not everybody shares your view.

I expect them to be on a more or less subtle way to be corrupt, lazy bastards. And if they are not lazy and corrupt, they are potentially insane or worse: Idealistic.

If listening to climate scientists brings votes in the next election, they will do. If it means a historic chance, they might do it, if they can sell it like that in the next election.

There is no obvious reason to believe that our scientists are performing better than our politicians, or the other way around for that matter.

With the exception that science has mechanisms which prevent human errors to become de-facto standard. In politics, a bad lousy compromise becomes very often the Status Quo.

 

[lockingtoggle]

Give a good reason why we should not progress past coal and petroleum; In a steady, cautious but pressed pace?

There is no reason not to. Why do you assume that I'm against it? I acualy think that we should.

So, how is democracy going to act on these issues if not politically, based on the understanding of the demos to the cratus?

I hope I understand you correctly this time, if not please correct me.
If your question is what will happen if we fail to address this issue (assuming that this truly is an issue) by democratic means?
My answer is that; we will all gonna die.

Looking mighty informed, in the political aspects, but not in SCIENCE itself eh?
Science is not unattainable.. trust me you can handle it. It is not necessary to take any one's word for it... READ THE SCIENCE and practice it... quit wasting your time on some guy's political review of it.

Again, there is no obvious reason to believe that science is more important than politics, art, history, philosophy, or any other human intellectual activity. You can use a bit of the above as well, it does not hurt.


-----Post Added-----

I expect them to be on a more or less subtle way to be corrupt, lazy bastards. And if they are not lazy and corrupt, they are potentially insane or worse: Idealistic.

I am with you on that one. But that's valid for scientists as well. They are both human after all.
Being a scientist does not make you honest. You agree with me on that, right?

With the exception that science has mechanisms which prevent human errors to become de-facto standard.

That is true for all science dealing with things, but unfortunately not for the ones dealing with people. What I mean is that dealing with things is some how easier than dealing with minds.

Politics also has mechanisms to prevent human errors to become de-facto standard, and one of them is democracy.

 

[Urwumpe]

Being a scientist does not make you honest. You agree with me on that, right?

That is why the scientific method is so difficult and boring.

That is true for all science dealing with things, but unfortunately not for the ones dealing with people. What I mean is that dealing with things is some how easier than dealing with minds.

You might be surprised how good science is in dealing with minds. The good thing is, that scientists rarely cooperate so well, that you have to be scared.

A climate scientist teaming up with a political scientist or a mass psychologist would be very scary.

 

[Omhra]

You assume that politicians are not doing what they have to. But obviously not everybody shares your view.

There is no obvious reason to believe that our scientists are performing better than our politicians, or the other way around for that matter.

....Ahumm, because you can test science for yourself?


Science is not myth...science is testable, science is for all...

Politics are for groups who share common interests... mostly secretive.

You equate them.. like I said... cum hoc, etcetera...

But no point as to why we should delay progress? I really expected you to sail past that one with no reply, because that is how your think-group operates... hit and run.

So we have some saying that science is religion; our existence is too complex to even bother, and also; some saying that science is politically driven...
Both those assumptions stem from not having paid attention in class, I am afraid.

I will say this all encompassing truth which explain it all... "all things spin about"...

Ring your bell.


-----Post Added-----

Again, there is no obvious reason to believe that science is more important than politics, art, history, philosophy, or any other human intellectual activity. You can use a bit of the above as well, it does not hurt.

There are plenty of obvious reasons... REASON being the most relevant.

You can hope that you got a hold on some profound thing. That does not make it true...

If you want to go to mars, "thinking" that you figure you can does not mean you can.
Devaluating the scientific method is a slippery slope, remember Alexandria around 2000 tears ago?...

 

[lockingtoggle]

But no point as to why we should delay progress? I really expected you to sail past that one with no reply, because that is how your think-group operates... hit and run.

I did answer that question. All I can do is write, can't help you in the reading part.

So we have some saying that science is religion;

I've never read something like that, not here in the forum. What I've read is that some people treat it like it was a religion.

Devaluating the scientific method is a slippery slope, remember Alexandria around 2000 tears ago?...

We should not devaluate science. All I'm saying is that some of us should reevaluate the rest.

 

[Urwumpe]

We should not devaluate science. All I'm saying is that some of us should reevaluate the rest.

Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work.

Now explain, what do you want to reevaluate? Magic? Or Science, despite it being subject to constant and enduring correction and reevaluation by definition? Nothing is as old as the scientific theories of the past year.

 

[Omhra]

I did answer that question. All I can do is write, can't help you in the reading part.

Yeah you did, crossed posting, I apologize.
Good answer too.

I've never read something like that, not here in the forum. What I've read is that some people treat it like it was a religion

There are some... that say science offers prophesy and so on... read back, you'll see those posts.

We should not devaluate science. All I'm saying is that some of us should reevaluate the rest.

I could not agree more.

 

[lockingtoggle]

Now explain, what do you want to reevaluate? Magic? Or Science, despite it being subject to constant and enduring correction and reevaluation by definition? Nothing is as old as the scientific theories of the past year.

I want that some people reevaluate the need to expose themselfs to politics, art, history, philosophy, or any other human intellectual activity.

It will be easier to follow the conversation if you read all the posts.

 

[Urwumpe]

I want that some people reevaluate the need to expose themselfs to politics, art, history, philosophy, or any other human intellectual activity.

For what?

Also, I read the whole posts. If you don't like people reacting on the wrong message, I recommend you to reevaluate your writing style.

 

[lockingtoggle]

For what?

Because they are part of life, and lubricate human interaction.

Oh sorry, I thought so because you mentione magic, and that was not part of my list.

 

[Omhra]

Urwumpe,

Perhaps a better question to Lockingtoggle would be;
How do you want to revise it...?
By prayer and personal revelation?... by luck.
Not with statistics, obviously, since that would be science...

But we should be in touch with our intuitions and emotions... follow it without first coldly examining what is at stake using science and you will end up like in the 1800s again...

Here we have yet another attempt to confuse the issues... bringing philosophy into metrics.

Look Moonwalker, Lockingtoggle... open a philosophy topic... lets go at it.

But there is no substitute for good science... NOTE I said science... so don't start with the scientists being this or that... Become one and contribute to honest good science. Instead of trying to dilute the notion by saying that a priest, a mystic, or a philosopher has THE alternate way to conclude a thought.

 

[Urwumpe]

There is no alternative to the scientific method yet. There are flaws in it. True. But less flaws as in other concepts of finding the truth.

 

[lockingtoggle]

Perhaps a better question to Lockingtoggle would be;
How do you want to revise it...?
By prayer and personal revelation?... by luck.

That is definitely not the way a scientist would ask a question.

 

[Urwumpe]

That is definitely not the way a scientist would ask a question.

Exactly. He would examine which of these works better under some selected conditions and by special qualities.

For example: Does praying really help against climate change?