Pin it! DirtDoc, Cobrapilot, evanvarsamis likes this
I still think we should become energy independent, and more efficient, and environmentally cleaner, but hopefully this wakes the fear mongrels up.
DirtDoc, Cobrapilot, evanvarsamis likes this
I still think we should become energy independent, and more efficient, and environmentally cleaner, but hopefully this wakes the fear mongrels up.
6 comments
Login to comment →
DirtDoc 11 years, 2 months ago
I think "monger" is the word, but yeah.
Contrary to what many think, the IPCC is a bastion of scientific integrity. (Always remeber, you can't confuse those who wave the report like a cudgel with those who wrote it.)
There are a lot of problems with fossil fuels beyond carbon, like mercury in fish and whatever might happen with fracking. So renewables will still be necessary, and ASAP in my opinion.
Finally, mustached this if only because the article, while an opinion piece, was some of the best science reporting I've read in a long time. He actually discussed measurement error. Fantastic.
Reply
Robochess 11 years, 2 months ago
Yea dirt dr, most say monger, but I like mongrel, I just think its funnier.
Yes, it is opinion, however it is based on the studies of scientist that you hold in esteem. I am not saying that all scientists are corrupt, they are, somewhat removed from politicians. However, to get the funding for research many become politicians, and some sell their soul for the money, they are after all human, and have needs and desires.
It was well written which is why I hope it gets people to think, not to mimic the media talking points. Maybe, just maybe to get people to read opposite viewpoints, not just party line vomit points, so that they can see the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle of the 2 extreme sides.
Reply
DirtDoc 11 years, 2 months ago
I think vilification of scientists is far beyond te reality. Falsification, and fabrication are te cardinal sins of science, and when discovered those people lose their careers. And sometimes go to jail, though perhaps that should happen more often.
And I wasn't disparaging the article, but complementing it (while insulting most science reporters). I found a clear distinction between what the data said and what the author thought it meant. That's exactly how it should be.
One problem with the "both sides" argument is that, when it comes to science, there may not be both sides. For instance, in a debate between low warmin estimates and high warming estimates, there is a debate. Right now the IPCC is siding with lower warming estimates. But there is no debate between those who think warming is occurring those who think climate change is a lie.
So I agree completely with reasoned and evidenced debates, but we also have to be clear not to lend legitimacy to unscientific view points.
Reply
Robochess 11 years, 2 months ago
I am not as you say vilifying the scientist, I am being a realist. Scientist are also swayed by money, aft all that is how they make a living. They need money just like anybody else. Then, once they have people working their responsibilities are even greater. Have you seen the studies on how now upto 67% of studies are retracted? Yes, somebody is catching them, and that is awesome, but even a hard core believers have to see that these numbers don't lie. I have conversed with you in the past and realize that you are an educated person. So I believe you when you state the moral code as a code that all uphold, unfortunately people are people and greed often overwhelms the code of honor.
I am not saying that humans are not affecting our planet, I am sure we are, but to say that 'climate change' is the anthropogenic catastrophe, may be very overstated.
Reply
DirtDoc 11 years, 2 months ago
I haven't seen anything near 67%. The highest I've ever seen is well below 1%. Here's my best source: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0044118">http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0044118
And your last statement depends on your semantics. Some people say CC will be an extinction level event for humans and that is a lot of hyperbole and fear mongering. But it could constitute a serious threat to a lot of resources we depends on, like fish stock. It has been and will be a serious threat to biodiversity. (Round me we have no ash trees left.) It depends on my definition of climate change. GW from carbon dioxide is only part of it. Plastic in the oceans, loss of biodiversity, and water depletion are all serious problems, but they won't kill us off.
Reply
Robochess 11 years, 2 months ago
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0044118">http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0044118
Here is a link.
My statement is that with the current studies on growing ice sheets and plateaued global temps the goreism of humans causing this is unclear at best.
Reply