Global Warming is over.

[marshallnoise]

So you agree man is responsible for climate change? Also, "political operative," lol, you sound ridiculous. I don't see why a scientist, along with engineers and economists, who advises politicians on actions to prevent damage to the environment disqualifies them or is unethical. Sharing knowledge with the public is usually part of their job...

No. I didn't say that. What I did say is that is the crux of the debate.



Never heard of political operatives? Goebbels? Dewey?



I agree that scientists, engineers and economists should advise the public. But I don't always believe them, nor should you. More over, I wish the state of Louisiana and specifically New Orleans listened to the Army Core of Engineers more when they kept telling the state/city that the levees weren't sufficient. Oh wait, politics got in the way.

Agreed, but do you have an example we can actually discuss or is this all just hypothetical?

Google: Green New Deal. Google: France's Yellow Vest Movement


Not sure if you will click...but...its all laid out there for you.

I don't really know what your point here is. You admit we can (and we have) destroyed the environment in some cases, but ultimately our impacts are harmless and nature is invincible? I don't even know where to begin with this. And really, nature is consciously trying to kill me? You sound like a paranoid idiot.

Clearly you don't get my point. No, we haven't "destroyed" the environment. We have caused damage that recovers and usually, very quickly, indicating nature is far more resilient than you give it credit for. Hell, you can blow the top off a mountain and it would take one more massive earthquake to push it back up.



I may sound like a paranoid idiot to you, but spending 15 minutes outside of your, (supposition here) urban bubble, would greet you with how a grizzly bear, charging moose, charging elk, freezing cold, extreme heat (both happen without man's help, think Alaska), wolves, buffalo, might kill you. It certainly doesn't care about you, even a little. More over, it will probably something stupid that kills you like a disease carrying mosquito.[/QUOTE]

Being poor is an excuse to litter and not care about living in your own shit, got it.

You lack all appreciation for what the modern world has done for you. Mankind has overcome amazing obstacles of nature for you to sit here and type this on a computer or cell phone.



It would do you well to stop being an ungrateful, petulant child and begin to think about what life was like for all of our ancestors. You should be appreciative that we have roads, electricity, running water (potable no less), a means to translate your labor into money to purchase housing, food (from anywhere btw).



You seem to lack ANY imagination about what people actually lived like not that long ago. Let me tell you something; IT WASN'T BETTER. Now is the best its ever been. And it didn't get that way by praying to mother gaia. It got that way by man taking control of the environment around him and making it a reasonably hospitable place to be. And all of our efforts still can't prevent you from getting cancer, a malignant tumor, or a million other things THAT WILL KILL YOU.



You seem to think that I don't see the big picture at all, but it is you my friend who misses the context of history. I have never said to do nothing; but to do something carefully and extremely well thought out that will benefit ALL mankind, not just the elites who want to take environmentalist policy and use it as a hammer to bludgeon the "have nots" with and create a legitimate underclass.

[Wschnitz]

Marshall isnt wrong about lower classes caring much less about the environment, but its not because they consciously don't care about it as he implies.

Poor people are apathetic to the problems their actions create because they cant afford to avoid those problems.

Cheap products are not good for the environment, packaged in un-recyclable materials, are usually produced in mass, are usually heavily processed, and are cheaply constructed leading to short life cycles which means the product ends up in a landfill sooner than it should.

This is what the corporations want. They want you to think nothing is really happening and you personally cant do anything. While they hand more money off to politicians and keep pumping out more pollutants than all the individuals on the planet will for generations. You have been tricked into thinking the Economy needs to constantly grow, that it needs to be unhindered to achieve balance, that rules are unhelpful and cause chaos. When in reality it is the opposite.

Lead was in fuel until scientists pointed out it was going to kill people.

Cigarettes were the worlds favorite drug ingestion method until people learned their life span could be as short as 50 years old due to carcinogens, when scientists revealed it.

Asbestos was a great affordable insulator until it was discovered by scientists that it will cause lung cancer and kill you if you breath it in.

The fact that you are so blind as to trust corporations whose only interests are pure profit, at the expense of individuals and the environment but are skeptical of most things scientists say about climate is disturbing.

[cale]

Science is objective, the practitioners of science are not necessarily so. Not acknowledging this is not very bright.

Erring on the side of the non-expert columnists being correct over the scientists is about as far from bright as you can get.

[marshallnoise]

Comment =/= provide a resource of scientific merit, it hasn't been reviewed and the commenter is providing his opinion, an uneducated one at that.

So?

An appeal to authority to a singular entity would be foolish, but it's not singular. Your analogy to a subjective event is ridiculous, the study of science which does in fact require a formal education is not the same as the evaluation of sport. Would you trust an opinion from a random fan who saw a tackle to evaluate head trauma in a tackle, or a neurosurgeon?

"I'm a skeptic, but I'm more skeptical of the experts than the mouthpieces"

I am saying that neurosurgeons and random fans both have assholes and they both use them to shit. Experts have been wrong about lots of things and they will continue to be wrong about many more things in the future, just like non-experts. They aren't made from a finer clay than you or me.



Science is objective, the practitioners of science are not necessarily so. Not acknowledging this is not very bright.

[E30 Wagen]

Anything that burdens the economy unnecessarily. When the scientists work with political operatives to develop solutions to man-made climate change, they no longer are scientists. Carbon credits are a fucking farce as they do not curb behavior but enrich the ruling political class. Not holding India and China to the same standards but only burdening western civilization and the continent of Africa (the latter is racist on its face).

So you agree man is responsible for climate change? Also, "political operative," lol, you sound ridiculous. I don't see why a scientist, along with engineers and economists, who advises politicians on actions to prevent damage to the environment disqualifies them or is unethical. Sharing knowledge with the public is usually part of their job...

There is nothing funny or good about stripping people's livelihood away from them in the name of something that, in my opinion, will have a minuscule effect at best.

Agreed, but do you have an example we can actually discuss or is this all just hypothetical?

Short of wholesale contempt for the environment (dumping in rivers, nuclear war/fallout), there isn't much we can do to destroy the environment. Nature will kill you and not be remorseful about it. Nature is trying to kill you and it doesn't give a fuck about you.

I don't really know what your point here is. You admit we can (and we have) destroyed the environment in some cases, but ultimately our impacts are harmless and nature is invincible? I don't even know where to begin with this. And really, nature is consciously trying to kill me? You sound like a paranoid idiot.

The number one way to improve the environment is to bring economic prosperity to every community in the world. Studies show that as soon as people aren't living hand to mouth, they begin to care about where they live.

You don't give a shit about litter when you can't feed yourself that day. Nor should you.

Being poor is an excuse to litter and not care about living in your own shit, got it.

[cale]

So only scientists are able to decide what is legit or not in terms of science? No one else can comment?

Strange.

Comment =/= provide a resource of scientific merit, it hasn't been reviewed and the commenter is providing his opinion, an uneducated one at that.

Not quite. The same logic though would tell you that you can't comment on the game of football if you weren't a football player, coach, or team owner.

Ever since Woodrow Wilson, we created the tyranny of the "expert" who should be obeyed no matter what.

Sorry, I am not willing to believe everything the experts say.

An appeal to authority to a singular entity would be foolish, but it's not singular. Your analogy to a subjective event is ridiculous, the study of science which does in fact require a formal education is not the same as the evaluation of sport. Would you trust an opinion from a random fan who saw a tackle to evaluate head trauma in a tackle, or a neurosurgeon?

"I'm a skeptic, but I'm more skeptical of the experts than the mouthpieces"

[marshallnoise]

Please elaborate on what political remedies have you skeptical. If you're skepticism is fueled by an emotional response to proposed political solutions then you're not being objective and you need to work on your critical thinking skills, something which scientists are very good at.

Anything that burdens the economy unnecessarily. When the scientists work with political operatives to develop solutions to man-made climate change, they no longer are scientists. Carbon credits are a fucking farce as they do not curb behavior but enrich the ruling political class. Not holding India and China to the same standards but only burdening western civilization and the continent of Africa (the latter is racist on its face).

There is nothing funny or good about stripping people's livelihood away from them in the name of something that, in my opinion, will have a minuscule effect at best.

Short of wholesale contempt for the environment (dumping in rivers, nuclear war/fallout), there isn't much we can do to destroy the environment. Nature will kill you and not be remorseful about it. Nature is trying to kill you and it doesn't give a fuck about you.

The number one way to improve the environment is to bring economic prosperity to every community in the world. Studies show that as soon as people aren't living hand to mouth, they begin to care about where they live.

You don't give a shit about litter when you can't feed yourself that day. Nor should you.

[z31maniac]

You don't like when I comment about your xenophobic, racist, bullying, misogynistic pig president and church guru? ;-)

More poor trolling attempts. I didn't vote for Orange Man.

Please look at the other thread because you don't seem to understand international politics.

[E30 Wagen]

Fair and reasoned response. The last line is key and in my mind, and in a lot of people too, the science is not settled on that. And a lot of that skepticism is due to the politically motivated remedy.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Please elaborate on what political remedies have you skeptical. If you're skepticism is fueled by an emotional response to proposed political solutions then you're not being objective and you need to work on your critical thinking skills, something which scientists are very good at.

[Massive Lee]

This is hysterical given your recent posts.

You don't like when I comment about your xenophobic, racist, bullying, misogynistic pig president and church guru? ;-)

[marshallnoise]

Peer review is a vital part of the scientific process. Certainly anybody can comment, but when it comes to actual analysis I think we can grant some authority to the experts who live and breathe it.


Neither is any scientist worth his salt. Again, science is all about challenging what we think we know about natural phenomena. If a scientist decides he wants to prove global warming exists, then he is already failing at his job. I'd say that the term "expert" is applied to scientists who are not necessarily all knowing in a particular field, but are rigorous in the methods of collecting and analyzing data. So far data is showing that the earth is warming. Hypothesis' are that co2 might have something to do with it.

Fair and reasoned response. The last line is key and in my mind, and in a lot of people too, the science is not settled on that. And a lot of that skepticism is due to the politically motivated remedy.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

[E30 Wagen]

So only scientists are able to decide what is legit or not in terms of science? No one else can comment?

Strange.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Peer review is a vital part of the scientific process. Certainly anybody can comment, but when it comes to actual analysis I think we can grant some authority to the experts who live and breathe it.

Sorry, I am not willing to believe everything the experts say.

Neither is any scientist worth his salt. Again, science is all about challenging what we think we know about natural phenomena. If a scientist decides he wants to prove global warming exists, then he is already failing at his job. I'd say that the term "expert" is applied to scientists who are not necessarily all knowing in a particular field, but are rigorous in the methods of collecting and analyzing data. So far data is showing that the earth is warming. Hypothesis' are that co2 might have something to do with it.

[marshallnoise]

'So only people who spent years educating themselves in their scientific field are able to decide what is legit or not in that scientific field? People without any knowledge in that field cant comment?

Strange.'

Not quite. The same logic though would tell you that you can't comment on the game of football if you weren't a football player, coach, or team owner.

Ever since Woodrow Wilson, we created the tyranny of the "expert" who should be obeyed no matter what.

Sorry, I am not willing to believe everything the experts say.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

[Wschnitz]

So only scientists are able to decide what is legit or not in terms of science? No one else can comment?

Strange.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

'So only people who spent years educating themselves in their scientific field are able to decide what is legit or not in that scientific field? People without any knowledge in that field cant comment?

Strange.'

[marshallnoise]

Posts opinion piece written by a lawyer...."it follows the scientific method". You don't even know what the words you use mean.

So only scientists are able to decide what is legit or not in terms of science? No one else can comment?

Strange.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk