Pre-"scientist"
Pre-scientific method
Pre-global communication between scholars
It was also a layman consensus, or more, something people didn't think about.
But yes, totally comparable.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Irreversible climate damage is imminent
- Thread starter Tupac
- Start date
Pre-"scientist"
Pre-scientific method
Pre-global communication between scholars
It was also a layman consensus, or more, something people didn't think about.
But yes, totally comparable.
Like I said, all I have said is easy to confirm. Why does one side need to threaten or destroy someone's career if they have nothing to hide?
You don't come to scientific consensus by back stabbing and intimidation unless you are hiding something.
Telegraph.co.uk
Saturday 05 April 2014 | UK News feed
UK NEWS
Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
By Tom Harper12:01AM GMT 11 Mar 2007
Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.
They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.
Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.
One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.
"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.
Related Articles
Cameron considers tax hikes on air travel 11 Mar 2007
"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."
Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.
Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.
"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."
Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."
Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."
You don't come to scientific consensus by back stabbing and intimidation unless you are hiding something.
Telegraph.co.uk
Saturday 05 April 2014 | UK News feed
UK NEWS
Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
By Tom Harper12:01AM GMT 11 Mar 2007
Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.
They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.
Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.
One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.
"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.
Related Articles
Cameron considers tax hikes on air travel 11 Mar 2007
"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."
Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.
Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.
"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."
Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."
Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."
You think nobody practiced science back then?
Nobody observed the world around them and came up with hypotheses? And these people who spent all their time doing these observations, they weren't "scientists" They were laymen?
And there was zero communication between scholars?
How the hell do you think they came up with principles of science in the first place?
Mankind has been science-ing on this planet for longer than you can imagine. They may have been called wizards or alchemists or whatever you wish to call them. People have been performing "science" for 1000s and 1000s of years.
You think nobody practiced science back then?
Nobody observed the world around them and came up with hypotheses? And these people who spent all their time doing these observations, they weren't "scientists" They were laymen?
And there was zero communication between scholars?
How the hell do you think they came up with principles of science in the first place?
Mankind has been science-ing on this planet for longer than you can imagine. They may have been called wizards or alchemists or whatever you wish to call them. People have been performing "science" for 1000s and 1000s of years.
Not what I said now, is it? I'm saying the issue comes when drawing a comparison.
I'm saying it's before "scientist", pre the term. They may have been wizards, alchemists or whatever you want to call them, people who recorded and manipulated the natural world around them, but that doesn't make them scientists as we use the term today. It was substantially different to the stricter definition of science and the scientific method we have today.
Pre-global communication doesn't mean zero communication, stretching much? I've had the pleasure of collaborating with people across Europe, try doing that and exchanging data and conferencing instantly 100 years ago.
Consensus among laymen, not that the scholars were laymen.
Of course it existed and many great minds have led us to where we are now, for we are but dwarves on the shoulders of giants.
The truth today is far less stifled by those in power, be that rulers or churches but methods are also stricter, more open to scrutiny, more accountable. I'm saying you're comparing apples and oranges.
For what it's worth, there are still some who believe the earth is flat, they'd also call today's consensus on the earth being round as a conspiracy by those in power and highlight that a consensus doesn't make something a fact.
The majority consensus on climate change isn't the degree to which it is happening, it's that it happens (with and without us) and that we have an influence. There is no consensus on the degree of influence we have, which may be minor, may be major, that's what is truly up for debate.
Right, that is why I posted that. I mean I never heard of the guy before, ten seconds on google and I found that. Tip of the iceberg I would bet my life.
So we have a bunch of posters here who are either full of crap or downright dumb.
But maybe they can keep telling us how objective they are and how their scientists are too.
What will be your reward in the end for all this hard work you are doing? You are fighting the good fight, but for what, exactly?
To put you on his ignore list. His quest, it seems, is to block anyone who calls out his relentless BS.
How to actually reduce damage created by the big polluters of the world, and have them pay for it.... instead of stealing the money from Joe Everyman through "carbon taxes" and "carbon credits"... and giving it to the same mfkrs who are screwing everyone already, for them to stuff in their pockets.
That is what people disagree with for the most part.
Everyone can agree that the climate fluctuates, in varying degrees, over time, on this planet. We should be prepared to deal with it when it occurs.
And a whole lot better planning to avoid damage when mother nature strikes would make a helluva lot of sense too , don't you think?
Where are these ultra smart scientists when they are building a nuclear reactor on a fault-line in a tsunami zone? Maybe we wouldn't have nuclear radiation poisoning the Pacific Ocean now, if scientists were on the stick.
That is what people disagree with for the most part.
Everyone can agree that the climate fluctuates, in varying degrees, over time, on this planet. We should be prepared to deal with it when it occurs.
And a whole lot better planning to avoid damage when mother nature strikes would make a helluva lot of sense too , don't you think?
Where are these ultra smart scientists when they are building a nuclear reactor on a fault-line in a tsunami zone? Maybe we wouldn't have nuclear radiation poisoning the Pacific Ocean now, if scientists were on the stick.
No offense to you sir, but I don't really like someone telling me to not "waste" natural resources.
I use what I determine I need or want. I don't "waste" them, although you may think I do. I'm not telling you how to use YOUR natural resources.
And they're not "ours." The resources I pay for are mine and I use them how I see fit.
I'm not "tempted" to use resources, I employ them to accomplish my goals. It's not evil; it's called living and I'm taking it to the hilt baby.
Don't take this as a personal attack on you, I only quoted you because it gives me a point to respond to with my opinion.
Everyone is "wasting" (exploiting) resources for their own purposes. EVERYONE. It's just that some like to tell others to use less, and the rest of us do our thing without trying to control others.
And "global warming" is not going to "disappear overnight" because I start recycling plastic jugs. "Global warming" or whatever you want to call it - "supposed" man-made climate change, will not end because the causes of it are not gong to change. There is currently no substitute for fossil fuels! There is no way to lift a jet off the runway except fossil fuels. There is no other way to transport people and goods how we ALL need them to be transported. There's no other way to produce the food and products, and provide the services that we ALL need and want. Etc. etc. etc. NOTHING SIGNIFICANT IS GOING TO CHANGE in terms of what we're doing nor does it need to. And everyone who clamors for others to "reduce" is using tons of resources, which is the definition of hypocritical. So don't tell others to reduce, just reduce if that's what you want to do, but realize you're still part of your "problem."
Al Gore flies to a Climate Change summit to try and get me to "reduce," and "wastes" more fossil fuel than I will use responsibly in ten years! PREPOSTEROUS!! HYPOCRITE!! And he does it to LINE HIS OWN POCKET$! :scowl:
One more government-subsidized electric train that 99.999% of us don't want or need, or one more government-subsidized green factory that most of us won't benefit from, are not going to offset all the other uses for fossil fuels that we ALL need, want, and are going to continue to exploit... for our own good and respectable purposes.
Increase. Exploit. Recycle (aluminum cans, because they pay for them).
And I don't care what the lofty-critical-but-fellow-exploiters think.:not hiding:
No offense to you sir, but I don't really like someone telling me to not "waste" natural resources.
I use what I determine I need or want. I don't "waste" them, although you may think I do. I'm not telling you how to use YOUR natural resources.
And they're not "ours." The resources I pay for are mine and I use them how I see fit.
I'm not "tempted" to use resources, I employ them to accomplish my goals. It's not evil; it's called living and I'm taking it to the hilt baby.
Don't take this as a personal attack on you, I only quoted you because it gives me a point to respond to with my opinion.
Everyone is "wasting" (exploiting) resources for their own purposes. EVERYONE. It's just that some like to tell others to use less, and the rest of us do our thing without trying to control others.
And "global warming" is not going to "disappear overnight" because I start recycling plastic jugs. "Global warming" or whatever you want to call it - "supposed" man-made climate change, will not end because the causes of it are not gong to change. There is currently no substitute for fossil fuels! There is no way to lift a jet off the runway except fossil fuels. There is no other way to transport people and goods how we ALL need them to be transported. There's no other way to produce the food and products, and provide the services that we ALL need and want. Etc. etc. etc. NOTHING SIGNIFICANT IS GOING TO CHANGE in terms of what we're doing nor does it need to. And everyone who clamors for others to "reduce" is using tons of resources, which is the definition of hypocritical. So don't tell others to reduce, just reduce if that's what you want to do, but realize you're still part of your "problem."
Al Gore flies to a Climate Change summit to try and get me to "reduce," and "wastes" more fossil fuel than I will use responsibly in ten years! PREPOSTEROUS!! HYPOCRITE!! And he does it to LINE HIS OWN POCKET$! :scowl:
One more government-subsidized electric train that 99.999% of us don't want or need, or one more government-subsidized green factory that most of us won't benefit from, are not going to offset all the other uses for fossil fuels that we ALL need, want, and are going to continue to exploit... for our own good and respectable purposes.
Increase. Exploit. Recycle (aluminum cans, because they pay for them).
:not hiding:
Fair enough, but if everyone thought exactly the opposite of you the world would be in better shape no?
I don't mean not using fossil fuels, etc. I mean reducing some of the waste we contribute. If each person did that (essentially the opposite of your plan
) the earth would be in better shape. Not that it would instantly be better, or that we wouldn't still be contributing to climate change, but our impact would be lessened considerably as a whole - with little personal change.
It's only hypocritical if they aren't reducing what they use also.
Reduce doesn't mean stop entirely.
Our choices impact others around us and the environment we live in, but of course, that's just big government talking and that's clearly a bad thing when they force our money into subsidising green projects. The billions spend subsidising the oil industry is fine though.
There are so many other uses for our fossils fuels beyond energy, uses for which there aren't always other options. That's certainly a good enough reason to look at other options.
Even if you do want to stick to the energy side of things, surely it's worth looking at other options before we run out of a finite resource. Sure, we aren't going to run out tomorrow, but we will run out and it'd be nice to know there has been at least some headway made into alternatives...
You think nobody practiced science back then?
Nobody observed the world around them and came up with hypotheses? And these people who spent all their time doing these observations, they weren't "scientists" They were laymen?
And there was zero communication between scholars?
How the hell do you think they came up with principles of science in the first place?
Mankind has been science-ing on this planet for longer than you can imagine. They may have been called wizards or alchemists or whatever you wish to call them. People have been performing "science" for 1000s and 1000s of years.
Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth in like the third century BC. The flat world thing is pretty much bull.
Do you even question authority bro?
I dont really care about al Gore, but the polar bears are definitely NOT fine!!..neither is any of large mammal on the entire planet that we dont cultivate for food.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
No one is claiming that there hasn't been climate change in the past.
Here's something to think about:
Science told you that throughout the history of the earth, there's been climate change millions of years before we had any humans to record it or measure it. They can account for the source. You accept it as true.
Science tells you that currently we have climate change, they're measuring it, and that they can account for the source. You don't accept it as true.
The only difference between science telling you about things happening now and science telling you about things happening then is that you've got some AM radio fueled paranoia about government involved. It's your bias that is causing your disconnect.
So you disagree with the science because you disagree with the dystopian implementation that AM radio has suggested may come along with it?That might require more cows be raised, live for a time, emit methane and be slaughtered.
Not a very good trade off. ON the other hand big oil suppresses inventions that would lesson our need for it.
The problems that need to be addressed can only be addressed at the top but they have to do away with their sought total control grid for population lock down and control of ALL the resources. I mean it reads like something out of the Communist manifesto.
If you believe that the "free market" will solve a long term, global, social issue, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the "free market" works.No offense to you sir, but I don't really like someone telling me to not "waste" natural resources.
I use what I determine I need or want. I don't "waste" them, although you may think I do. I'm not telling you how to use YOUR natural resources.
And they're not "ours." The resources I pay for are mine and I use them how I see fit.
I'm not "tempted" to use resources, I employ them to accomplish my goals. It's not evil; it's called living and I'm taking it to the hilt baby.
Don't take this as a personal attack on you, I only quoted you because it gives me a point to respond to with my opinion.
Everyone is "wasting" (exploiting) resources for their own purposes. EVERYONE. It's just that some like to tell others to use less, and the rest of us do our thing without trying to control others.
And "global warming" is not going to "disappear overnight" because I start recycling plastic jugs. "Global warming" or whatever you want to call it - "supposed" man-made climate change, will not end because the causes of it are not gong to change. There is currently no substitute for fossil fuels! There is no way to lift a jet off the runway except fossil fuels. There is no other way to transport people and goods how we ALL need them to be transported. There's no other way to produce the food and products, and provide the services that we ALL need and want. Etc. etc. etc. NOTHING SIGNIFICANT IS GOING TO CHANGE in terms of what we're doing nor does it need to. And everyone who clamors for others to "reduce" is using tons of resources, which is the definition of hypocritical. So don't tell others to reduce, just reduce if that's what you want to do, but realize you're still part of your "problem."
Al Gore flies to a Climate Change summit to try and get me to "reduce," and "wastes" more fossil fuel than I will use responsibly in ten years! PREPOSTEROUS!! HYPOCRITE!! And he does it to LINE HIS OWN POCKET$! :scowl:
One more government-subsidized electric train that 99.999% of us don't want or need, or one more government-subsidized green factory that most of us won't benefit from, are not going to offset all the other uses for fossil fuels that we ALL need, want, and are going to continue to exploit... for our own good and respectable purposes.
Increase. Exploit. Recycle (aluminum cans, because they pay for them).
:not hiding:
Thanks for seeing it my way... he was performing science now wasn't he? Before the modern scientific method. Which was my point. He wasn't some common layman who just had a thought pop in his head. The flat earth thing was only to point out how the leading scientists of the time marginalized those who did not conform to the desired narrative. You can substitute the Earth being the center of the universe if you like. My point is still the same.
Do you even reading comprehend, bro?
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
You don't think that "Joe Everyman" will pay heavily by the increased volatility of the planet?
Latest posts
-
Need Recommendation for Repair Shop In Western Connecticut
- Latest: averagejoe53
-
-
-
-
