• 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

#144
Humbled said:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

I wonder what problem they're supposed to find reason to continue funding of?


Think about it.
Click to expand...

wikipedia said:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a scientific intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations, set up at the request of member governments. It was first established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 43/53. Membership of the IPCC is open to all members of the WMO and UNEP. The IPCC is chaired by Rajendra K. Pachauri.

The IPCC produces reports that support the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is the main international treaty on climate change. The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., human-induced] interference with the climate system". IPCC reports cover "the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature, which includes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.

Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC) to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.
The IPCC provides an internationally accepted authority on climate change,[10] producing reports which have the agreement of leading climate scientists and the consensus of participating governments. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was shared, in two equal parts, between the IPCC and Al Gore.
Click to expand...

Have some basis for your thinking. There is not really debate in the scientific community over the veracity of climate change. It is already well established, now they are working to understand it. Nobody is studying the moon's qualities as a garnish for hamburgers, that would be stupid.
 
#149
DerHoggz said:
I edited the post with more information. Climate change is established, now we study it. If information refutes it, the scientists will adapt or discard the theory as necessary.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The smarm-content didn't get edited, I noticed.


Anyhoo, Yes the climate is changing, no doubt. Whether it is a slam-dunk mandate for bigger government, higher taxes, and an international star-chamber of un-elected regulators is the question at hand. People who are compelled to exercise force upon their comrades :hmm: have a predictable predisposition.
 
#153
Unrepresented said:
One that permits life on this planet to flourish with minimal interference.

Also, feel free to think about your opinions long enough to formulate them fully. Your post per minute rate suggests that you may want to reflect on this more.

97% of scientists studying climate change are convinced. Perhaps you should study the same material they do.
Click to expand...


Scientists can't even agree on the age of the earth, let alone climate change causation.
 
#157
Humbled said:
Tell me how University Faculty members advance their career and, most importantly, enhance their income.
Click to expand...

Depends on the university. Teaching universities value teaching. Research universities value research. Those in the latter advance their careers through research. But your point is a total and complete red herring. Research and scholarship stands or falls on its own merits. Of course part of the reason why a researcher publishes a paper is to augment his or her CV and help his or her career. But that's irrelevant when that scholarship is held up to the standards of the scientific community, peer-review process, and the textbooks. Researchers don't give each other a free pass. Don't believe me, read a number of journal articles. A lot of it is pointing out flaws and problems in prior research.

It's not some conspiracy. If scientists were out there to publish BS research just for money, how come cold fusion isn't being lauded by the scientific community? I'm sure they could make a ton of money on that.
 
#158
LiquidMidnight said:
It's not some conspiracy. If scientists were out there to publish BS research just for money, how come cold fusion isn't being lauded by the scientific community? I'm sure they could make a ton of money on that.
Click to expand...

Most of academia has been fully overtaken by Statists, and indeed, this was a purposeful process over the past half-century. Would you dispute that?
 
#159
Humbled said:
Most of academia has been fully overtaken by Statists, and indeed, this was a purposeful process over the past half-century. Would you dispute that?
Click to expand...

Wikipedia tells me anarchism is the opposite of statism. Anarchy is bad.

Strawman.jpg
 
#160
Humbled said:
Most of academia has been fully overtaken by Statists, and indeed, this was a purposeful process over the past half-century. Would you dispute that?
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that physical scientific phenomena has a political ideology, but yes I would dispute that.

Kurtz (2005), who wrote an article that was more sympathetic to a conservative viewpoint, found that while social sciences and humanities are largely liberal, most other university departments are divided pretty equally down the middle as far as ideology. Also, keep in mind that academia is not a monolith. UC Berkley is going to probably have a much different demographic of faculty than George Mason University. Speaking anecdotally, here in PA, David Horowitz famously went on a witch hunt in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education for supposed rampant liberalism and found out that faculty largely represented the regional ideology from where they were recruited.

A purposeful process? Departments are ultimately the choosers of their faculty - not HR, not administrators. It is possible that homogeneity plays a part in the selection process. But this would be taking place at a micro or meso level, not a macro level as you are suggesting. However, a rival cause may be that certain disciplines attract certain people with an ideological disposition. For instance, those with literature backgrounds are probably going to be more liberal. This may be a theoretical explanation for Kurtz's finding of why social sciences and humanities are more liberal whereas other disciplines, such as business and engineering, are split down the middle.

If you have evidence for a systematic and teleological process of stocking the academy with people of a particular ideology, please provide links or references.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back