Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 161 to 189 of 189

Thread: Greta Thunberg

  1. #161

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,512
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    You know what? I think your posting quality has decreased lately.

    You shouldn't just be this shameless about how dumb you come across. At least try to improve yourself.
    What's really happening is that when you make criticism-worthy, questionable judgement about others, then instead of taking responsibility for making that judgment (and perhaps admitting that possibility that your judgment could be wrong), you blame others and call them idiots.

    It's the Socionics way.

    Uploading a video of you being emotional, then having someone typing you as an "F type" doesn't somehow magically bereft you of having any logical thoughts or logical abilities. This is why basing it on purely observations don't work, because which observations are we talking about?

    A much more sensible way would be to say being emotional and logical are both within the realm of possibilities. Of course we don't know if Greta is actually capable of having logical thoughts, if all we see are 10 second clips of her being emotional. But we can also say that the human brain is capable of having any kind of rational, logical thoughts. But at the same time, they're also capable of having irrational, illogical thoughts.

  2. #162
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,174
    Mentioned
    150 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    What's really happening is that when you make criticism-worthy, questionable judgement about others, then instead of taking responsibility for making that judgment (and perhaps admitting that possibility that your judgment could be wrong), you blame others and call them idiots.

    It's the Socionics way.
    I thought you didn't like socionics anymore, Singu.

  3. #163
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You guys are still talking about her...

    the sad part is that there will be a lot more of Greta to come...I'm going to have to watch her grow up. greeaaaat.

  4. #164
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    @Singu, here's another very short piece of writing you'll never read: LINK

    Many biologists that I've known have been agnostic, some have been theists, some have been atheists. But atheism is by nature a closed-view, it's a denial, a refusal, and also takes faith whereas agnostics remain open to having their minds changed. Agnosticism is more in line with scientific thinking in general, so I'd expect that to be the most common view. Having faith does not make a person's worldview contradictory however, especially if they recognize that it is faith. (The theists tend to be able to recognize that it's faith, the atheists deny it heh)

    There are so many holes in the evolutionary biology fields. The Theory of Natural Selection, although a foundational bedrock for all of the life sciences, still has MAJOR holes to be understood still.

    The gradualism, this slow march from pond scum to people, had to many close calls, to many happen-stance, I for one, just don't buy the aithiest world view. I can't even argue them, because I think they are well argued for their side, and most agnostics can't argue with atheists well either. The atheists have this round and probably many more for a couple generations to come.

    I think quantum physics will reveal God, eventually. The life sciences are far and away the most atheistic there is.

    If it was as simple as a lightening bolt in some water filled with organic compounds, we would have done it by now. The sheer complexity of a RNA encased in a phospholipid bi-layer boggles the mind that it neatly occurred on primordial Earth. Further, that that cell divided with immaculate copies and survived the hell scape....

    Evolutionary biologists might have been able to explain with well founded research and experimentation how life progresses via natural selection, but the very beginnings, how cells and RNA/DNA first started, they want everyone to rely on faith that they have the most educated guess.

    The same thing with the Big Bang, trust us, the Math can't lie. Trust us, we have the cosmic microwave back ground picture...

    Believe me, we are master technicians of reality, but at the same time, science doesn't have as many answers, especially of the big themes and topics, that they like to present as having.

    We, humanity, are fucking children, and science is as culturally bound by bias just as much anything else we think and believe. There is no Universal language, including Math and science. Although it really really feels like it to us WORD-LOGIC- THINKING- MEAT BAGS.

  5. #165
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    TIM
    1sx
    Posts
    3,007
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    You guys are still talking about her...

    the sad part is that there will be a lot more of Greta to come...I'm going to have to watch her grow up. greeaaaat.
    I don't think there will be. I think she'll fade out in a couple years. When she's an actual adult she'll have a harder time playing the poor victim youth. They'll find someone else to prop up and take her place perhaps though.

    I see a problem with the whole shift of the message being delivered now though and I think they're shooting themselves in the foot if they actually want to make a difference. Think of the old anti-pollution, anti-litter campaigns where they were all about personal responsibility, or like the old Smokey Bear commercials "Only YOU can prevent forest fires!" Now it's all "Help me Government! Save me! Make more laws! Make more restrictions! Make those bad people stop!" That shift of responsibility I don't think bodes well for anyone. Shift all the power and control to the government, why? I think there's another goal in mind here.

    I personally don't think we are in imminent danger from climate change, and I think all of this will be looked back at in time as foolishness, but pollution is a problem, and if people actually made that more of a focus (after all doesn't everyone want clean air and water?) then the emissions and so on would also be addressed at the same time. Every time an issue becomes extremely politicized though I start wondering what the real issue is and who has what to gain, because all those anti-pollution campaigns and so on that I remember from the 80s and 90s were bipartisan efforts, and for good reason - nobody of any kind of political leaning wants polluted air and water, toxic waste etc. The climate change folks though are only pushing from one direction, and they are only pushing the government for more regulations. What's this all really about? Y'know?

  6. #166
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    TIM
    1sx
    Posts
    3,007
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @timber, I agree with much of what you said. I often comment that I think it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God. And science doesn't have all the answers, but nor do I think most scientists think that they do. Their jobs are about discovery, finding out more, and learning, so if they believed they had all the answers, their jobs would be done. Nothing more to do here. You have to be open to exploring ideas, and sometimes what at first seems unreasonable or even silly turns out to actually be closer to the truth than what you imagined.

  7. #167
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,174
    Mentioned
    150 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think she is ILI..... mayyybe IEI.

  8. #168
    NASS CODA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Norway
    TIM
    EIE-Ni 7w8/4w3 Sx/So
    Posts
    45
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It really shocks me how many fucking idiots there are per capita. I cant imagine seriously getting angry at a young girl activist for speaking out against a scientifically PROVEN phenomena that threatens our species existence. Like seriously wtf is wrong with people. Wake up. Get a conscience. Dont run the entire rest of the species into the ground just because youre too fucking ignorant to wrap your head around whats happening.
    Socionics: E I E-Ni
    Enneagram: 7w8/4w3/8w7 478
    Inst: Sx/So
    DCNH: Creative

  9. #169
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't give a flying fuck how the message is delivered. Facts are facts, and skepticism about climate change is at the same level as flat-earth theory.

  10. #170
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Climate change never used to be a partisan issue. Fossil-fuel industry executives believed in it, for instance, as did the ultra-conservative Margaret Thatcher (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg&t=449). Someone like Thatcher might as well be an alien today―she had a degree in chemistry, unlike a modern politician, with a degree in law, finance, or business.

    Conservatives used to accept expert consensus. They used to believe in civics, even if Thatcherite (and Reaganite) policies played a part in ironing out this disposition. I don't know what happened in the intervening period to turn basic science into such a partisan issue, and I can only assume that it was propaganda sold to us by lobbyists with short term interests.

    (I'm using the word 'conservative' to denote free market conservatism, which is the dominant strain among people who call themselves conservative today. I know there are different types of conservatism that are mutually-exclusive, and I know that people on the left can also be radical free marketers; I don't care for the purpose of this conversation.)
    Last edited by xerxe; 10-01-2019 at 06:38 PM.

  11. #171
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,607
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Climate change never used to be a partisan issue. Fossil-fuel industry executives believed in it, for instance, as did the ultra-conservative Margaret Thatcher (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg&t=449). Someone like Thatcher might as well be an alien today―she had a degree in chemistry, unlike a modern politician, with a degree in law, finance, or business.

    Conservatives used to accept expert consensus. They used to believe in civics, even if Thatcherite (and Reaganite) policies played a part in ironing out this disposition. I don't know what happened in the intervening period to turn basic science into such a partisan issue, and I can only assume that it was propaganda sold to us by lobbyists with short term interests.

    (I'm using the word 'conservative' to denote free market conservatism, which is the dominant strain among people who call themselves conservative today. I know there are different types of conservatism that are mutually-exclusive, and I know that people on the left can also be radical free marketers; I don't care for the purpose of this conversation.)
    Without Reagan the IPCC wouldn't exist.


  12. #172
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,607
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interg...igins_and_aims

    The United States Environmental Protection Agency and State Department wanted an international convention to agree restrictions on greenhouse gases, and the conservativeReagan Administration was concerned about unrestrained influence from independent scientists or from United Nations bodies including UNEP and the WMO. The U.S. government was the main force in forming the IPCC as an autonomous intergovernmental body in which scientists took part both as experts on the science and as official representatives of their governments, to produce reports which had the firm backing of all the leading scientists worldwide researching the topic, and which then had to gain consensus agreement from every one of the participating governments. In this way, it was formed as a hybrid between a scientific body and an intergovernmental political organisation.[3]
    That said, the bolded is the reason why climate change became a partisan/political issue.


  13. #173
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    Without Reagan the IPCC wouldn't exist.
    Right. I wish that modern conservatives would be willing to return to the more civic-minded conservatism of their forebears, even if it does come packaged with a hefty dose of Reaganite supply-side economics.


    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interg...igins_and_aims

    That said, the bolded is the reason why climate change became a partisan/political issue.
    How did being an intergovernmental organisation make it partisan? I can guess, but I want to hear your take on it.

  14. #174
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,607
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    How did being an intergovernmental organisation make it partisan? I can guess, but I want to hear your take on it.
    Because it has scientists advising in the domain of public policy, whereas before the scientists were focused just on the science itself (even if they drew the same conclusions). Since they advised on public policy, this lead to a reaction on the part of those lobbyists with short term interests in mind you mentioned, kind of like "well if they can do it, so can we". And the propaganda about climate change not being real promoted by said lobbies works with some people mainly because they have the perception the IPCC is imposing something on them, and mixing science with politics.

    Of course that is my understanding, I could be wrong, but as of now that's how I see it.


  15. #175
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    Because it has scientists advising in the domain of public policy, whereas before the scientists were focused just on the science itself (even if they drew the same conclusions). Since they advised on public policy, this lead to a reaction on the part of those lobbyists with short term interests in mind you mentioned, kind of like "well if they can do it, so can we". And the propaganda about climate change not being real promoted by said lobbies works with some people mainly because they have the perception the IPCC is imposing something on them, and mixing science with politics.

    Of course that is my understanding, I could be wrong, but as of now that's how I see it.
    mic dropped.

  16. #176
    WinnieW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    1,384
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My PPoV is that there are too many facts that prove that climate will change in future.

    The more important question is the portion of climate change that is man made. Is it essential enough that we are an important factor of that change and are we able by changing our behavior to slow down that process?

    No one has proven that mankind is the main cause of climate change with certainty, but also no one has disproven that climate change is caused of climate change with certainty.
    I see only a lot of interpretations of whats going on in a way to defend the own point of view, either to affirm or refuse the hypothesis of mankind as cause of climate change.

    My view is to use the same way of thinking as Blaise Pascal applied. How shall we deal with uncertainty when we are able to choose and a wrong decision can have a fatal consequence?
    In that case of climate change:
    Reduce all activity that has an negative impact to our environment with the chance to slow down climate change
    or
    business as usual with a unknown certainty that future generations of humans will pay the price for our actions?

    A little more self-restriction for todays generation vs. huge personal restrictions forced by the natural environment.

    And there is one important aspect: Laws defined by humans are changeable, the laws of nature aren't.

    It's our choice...

  17. #177
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    Because it has scientists advising in the domain of public policy, whereas before the scientists were focused just on the science itself (even if they drew the same conclusions). Since they advised on public policy, this lead to a reaction on the part of those lobbyists with short term interests in mind you mentioned, kind of like "well if they can do it, so can we". And the propaganda about climate change not being real promoted by said lobbies works with some people mainly because they have the perception the IPCC is imposing something on them, and mixing science with politics.

    Of course that is my understanding, I could be wrong, but as of now that's how I see it.
    That's pretty good. I agree.


    Anyway, I take the position that climate change is agnostic to economic system. There are many capitalist enterprises that manufacture renewable energy technology, for instance, while the divide between left and right on the issue is frankly ridiculous. Any other external threat to humanity (like a comet) wouldn't cause this much obstinate foot-dragging.

  18. #178
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,607
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Anyway, I take the position that climate change is agnostic to economic system. There are many capitalist enterprises that manufacture renewable energy technology, for instance, while the divide between left and right on the issue is frankly ridiculous. Any other external threat to humanity (like a comet) wouldn't cause this much obstinate foot-dragging.
    I agree that climate chnage is agnostic to economic system.

    To comment on the whole energy debate, I do think it's possible to convert to forms of energy other than fossil fuels and still have a good economy, not that we have a choice since we will run out anyways (of fossil fuels). I don't think it's possible to convert solely to what is termed 'renewable' energy, you need nuclear (fission or fusion, though the latter is not avaliable yet despite being very promising from what I can tell) and hyrdoelectric to pick up the slack since wind and solar depend too much on variable factors at this point. But I do think you can have both a good economy and preservation of things like biodiversity and the climate.

    I guess what gets me is when some environmental advocates, the more radical ones at least, seem to dismiss economic concerns entirely. Greta said it herself in the speech she gave recently in NYC when she called economic growth a "fairy tale". I get that you need more radical people not so much to get things done, but to remind the more moderate folks of a given ideology of what their principles are and keep them from being too wishy washy and complacent. I just don't agree that politcians aeren't doing anything wrt to climate change, you could argue it's not enough, but going to extreme too fast would damage the economy, and I think policians are aware of that, and not only wrt to how it affects their careers but also how it would affect our societies. I'm not a big fan of politicians, but I do get what they seem to be doing here, I think Greta is wrong when she says they don't care and tries to get them to follow exactly what she prescribes. Emmanuel Macron's response to her comments, mainly that the kind of radicalism she espouses can antagonzie our societies (if it's taken too literally) seem spot on.

    Neither the dismissal of the climate in the name of the economy nor the dismissal of the economy in the name of climate are founded positions to hold.
    Last edited by Uncle Ave; 10-01-2019 at 09:48 PM.


  19. #179
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Sx/Sp
    Posts
    3,323
    Mentioned
    212 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reyne View Post
    Looks LSI on this pic. Reminds me of putin or Stalin

  20. #180
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    TIM
    1sx
    Posts
    3,007
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    Because it has scientists advising in the domain of public policy, whereas before the scientists were focused just on the science itself (even if they drew the same conclusions).
    They didn't draw the same conclusions. And they were turned into advocates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Forbes
    As the late Stephen Schneider, Stanford University Professor who had been one of the leading advocates of the dangers of global cooling in the 1970s, and then, as the lead author for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was one of the leading advocates of global warming, explained in an interview with Discover magazine:

    "And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means both."

    There you have it. In the name of the greater good, scientists must be political advocates otherwise they are not being effective. The detached honesty that is the cornerstone of the scientific method? A mere hope.
    People like to act like there's a total consensus and it gets bandied about a lot "proven fact" blah blah, but that's far from reality. The loudest advocates who preach to the media and give them dramatic headlines aren't the whole picture. They're just the only picture most people see.

    --Obviously those who make money off of all the industries that create emissions will have their own agendas to push, it'd be silly to deny it. But that doesn't mean you're getting "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" from others pushing their agendas either.
    Last edited by squark; 10-02-2019 at 02:54 PM.

  21. #181
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    But why would there be a coordinated effort to exaggerate the effects of climate change in the first place? Some of the claims surrounding climate change are indeed exaggerated―we're probably not going to go extinct as a species, for instance, and I do hope that no serious scientists are saying that. But if there is 97% consensus among experts that it's happening, and that its effects will be significant to the way our societies are organized―for the worse―then, surely, that has to raise a red flag.

    Suppose there are hidden motives at play. If we're allowed to dismiss someone's argument based on a possible nefarious agenda, then we're allowed to dismiss the other side using the exact same precedent.

  22. #182
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,178
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This whole climate change narrative is loaded with projections. There are symbolic motifs like the revenge of Mother Earth, the rising waters, the apocalypse. People get carried away by it. So it is hard to be objective about it. I'm surprised that nobody is talking about the obvious mythological connotations.

    Didn't the gods even in ancient times punish us humans with bad weather?

    The really interesting thing about climate change is what it says about our unconscious.

  23. #183
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    This whole climate change narrative is loaded with projections. There are symbolic motifs like the revenge of Mother Earth, the rising waters, the apocalypse. People get carried away by it. So it is hard to be objective about it. I'm surprised that nobody is talking about the obvious mythological connotations.

    Didn't the gods even in ancient times punish us humans with bad weather?

    The really interesting thing about climate change is what it says about our unconscious.
    Putting all the facts and figures aside, yes, there is something mythological at play.

    People have always been obsessed with the end times. In the 15th century it was fashionable in Christian Europe to think the Apocalypse would arrive at the start of the 16th Century.

  24. #184
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    TIM
    1sx
    Posts
    3,007
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    But why would there be a coordinated effort to exaggerate the effects of climate change in the first place? . . . Suppose there are hidden motives at play. If we're allowed to dismiss someone's argument based on a possible nefarious agenda, then we're allowed to dismiss the other side using the exact same precedent.
    That's exactly what I'm wondering. What would the purpose be, who has what to gain? People could say for example that this study in China is all a farce to prevent the Chinese from having to reduce their emissions in a time period of rapid growth: Chinese scientists warn of global cooling Because there could be political motivation people might take it less seriously. Personally, I think it's probably legitimate but very likely a microclimate effect. In other words, the area around the lake shows patterns in temperatures that don't necessarily reflect global trends.

    In other words, no, I don't think studies and data should be dismissed out of hand because of possible political motives. But, there isn't actually a consensus. There's a lot of data and studies against the models produced and the numbers projected by global warming enthusiasts. I keep seeing it quoted that 99% of scientists agree, etc. but then you look into this and you see that the IPCC just removes dissenting opinions because their whole GOAL is a consensus. They have to present a unified front.

    A lot of times when you look not at the headlines, but the actual studies behind the headlines you see a slightly different picture from what's being presented. Sometimes that picture only vaguely resembles the headlines.

  25. #185
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    This whole climate change narrative is loaded with projections. There are symbolic motifs like the revenge of Mother Earth, the rising waters, the apocalypse. People get carried away by it. So it is hard to be objective about it. I'm surprised that nobody is talking about the obvious mythological connotations.

    Didn't the gods even in ancient times punish us humans with bad weather?

    The really interesting thing about climate change is what it says about our unconscious.
    I agree with you that laypeople have a tendency to interpret opaque scientific conclusions through archetypal symbols and anthropomorphisms. Climate advocates will also often frame the issue by invoking moralizing language that (intentionally or unintentionally) attempts to elicit a sense of decency, like the need to act as responsible stewards towards a 'dying' planet―a clear theme of charity, perhaps of a religious kind, towards the weak and the destitute.

    But if that forms the basis for dismissing the arguments of climate advocates, then climate change skeptics should also be dismissed for doing the same thing. Mankind's right to exploit the planet for its own benefit is often claimed by these people; whether or not that's true, it has parallels with the old testament theme of the conquest of Canaan, the promised land which was given by God for the Israelites to usurp. Yet another oft-invoked theme is the limited agency of man to alter the natural world. This is plainly false, but it is analogous to the mythological theme of the smallness of mankind in the face of an omnipotent deity.

    Virtually every issue that becomes political is quickly wrapped in one or another mythological cloak, not just climate change, and emotionally-laden arguments abound everywhere. Fortunately (or unfortunately), facts don't care about our feelings.
    Last edited by xerxe; 10-02-2019 at 09:06 PM.

  26. #186
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    TIM
    1sx
    Posts
    3,007
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Put it this way: there has been a general warming trend shown since the 1880s until today. In what manner that will change in the future and by how much is still up for debate. So far the models produced haven't been shown to be accurate enough to say.

  27. #187
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    That's exactly what I'm wondering. What would the purpose be, who has what to gain? People could say for example that this study in China is all a farce to prevent the Chinese from having to reduce their emissions in a time period of rapid growth: Chinese scientists warn of global cooling Because there could be political motivation people might take it less seriously. Personally, I think it's probably legitimate but very likely a microclimate effect. In other words, the area around the lake shows patterns in temperatures that don't necessarily reflect global trends.
    I didn't know about that study, and I'll definitely look into it. From what I previously understood, the global cooling trend was known about decades ago, and that it has been reversed by man-made global warming.

    I was also under the impression that the Chinese government was taking climate change very seriously. It (along with India) has planted an enormous number of trees to combat deforestation. It's also in the process of imposing severe restrictions and regulations on what can be built.

    It isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination―China continues to build polluting industries and energy generation facilities. But, over the past several years, Chinese emissions from growth have remained neutral, and China is on track to meet its Paris 2020 targets. It has also become the leading manufacturer of renewable energy technology (like solar panels).


    In other words, no, I don't think studies and data should be dismissed out of hand because of possible political motives. But, there isn't actually a consensus. There's a lot of data and studies against the models produced and the numbers projected by global warming enthusiasts. I keep seeing it quoted that 99% of scientists agree, etc. but then you look into this and you see that the IPCC just removes dissenting opinions because their whole GOAL is a consensus. They have to present a unified front.

    A lot of times when you look not at the headlines, but the actual studies behind the headlines you see a slightly different picture from what's being presented. Sometimes that picture only vaguely resembles the headlines.
    I didn't know that. I'll definitely look into the allegation that the IPCC promotes research selectively. But is the IPCC the only authoritative source? This page from NASA's website lists a number of other authoritative bodies that make the same claims about climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.

  28. #188
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,607
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    They didn't draw the same conclusions. And they were turned into advocates.



    People like to act like there's a total consensus and it gets bandied about a lot "proven fact" blah blah, but that's far from reality. The loudest advocates who preach to the media and give them dramatic headlines aren't the whole picture. They're just the only picture most people see.

    --Obviously those who make money off of all the industries that create emissions will have their own agendas to push, it'd be silly to deny it. But that doesn't mean you're getting "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" from others pushing their agendas either.
    The IPCC does not publish any original research. All they do is look at the greatest number of scientific studies possible and determine an average of what the effects of climate change will be based on those studies, and try to influence public policy as a result. The IPCC neither projects the worse case scenarios nor the best case scenarios, it is like a mean of these scenarios.

    Of course, this methodology is questionable.

    And yes, there is manipulation of the masses being commited by the IPCC, because they make claims in a way that are emotional and reductionistic in order to create fear/panic in the average citizen in order for people to accept certain policies. This is typical of environmental causes. For example, the polar bear and giant panda being used as mascots for saving biodviersity, when neither species is essential to it in comparison to insects, algae, fish, etc which have less emotional appeal as mascots. I'm not a fan of saying things for emotional effect so I agree that such methods are questionable, and that it's turning science into propaganda. Propaganda does not have to be ill-intended in order to qualify as such, and its consequences can be good, bad or neutral.


  29. #189
    MegaDoodoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    149
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    I don't give a flying fuck how the message is delivered. Facts are facts, and skepticism about climate change is at the same level as flat-earth theory.
    Maybe we're in the sophist age of disenlightenment where even substantiated science and facts can be twisted into mere conjecture. All hail President Camacho.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •