The March for Science Because There is No Planet B

originally posted by: yuppa

No you arent crazy. just easily swayed by fake numbers and padded graphs and charts.

Couldn't the same be said for science opposition? Granted there have been some misinformation or lies from a minority of scientists, muddying the waters of empirical truths, but we still rely on the findings of real science, that is shared and repeatable from numerous organizations,as opposed to just a few.

I get your disdain and realize the word 'science' has been tainted these days, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. With information so accessible these days we as individuals can become better informed,which must include cross referencing sources and not just buying single articles and claims. It worries me that science is being viewed as bogus in such a sweeping general fashion, but it is still the primary method and foundation to discovery, innovation truth and facts.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Disowned him have ya?

I'm old enough to remember the Thalidomide scandals that were developing when I was a child. People who said the drug was causing birth defects were scorned and demonized.

Same with DES, which was handed out to women like jelly beans.

Both these drugs had the best "science" of the day behind them. And yet today, I still have to guard against the effects of my mother's having taken DES because her doc told her it was the latest thing.

Asking people to bow down to science when there are multitudes of us who are the victims of "science" practicing medicine is a bit ridiculous.

originally posted by: waftist
I get your disdain and realize the word 'science' has been tainted these days,

I don't think science has been tainted. Science is misunderstood.

The debate about climate change is a side-show. The bleating by creationists, flat earthers and Planet Xers are anti-science.

For those who are using their smartphone to complain about science, or waiting for the weather forecast to see if the Convention on Creationism will be pleasant, I have just one thing to say...

To quote Isaac Asimov - “The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.”

originally posted by: Pyle
Reading your posts is the best because so much is wrong.

Yet none of you partisan political types (the stuff of political science, nowadays drizzled in tribalist bent sociology) are ever able to intellectually challenge my work which crosses over the many Mind / Brain Sciences fields such as political science / psychology / social psychology / social engineering / developmental psychology etc / etc (generally with a particular emphasis on Social Psychology my work tends to be where you'd be concerned).

Just scoffing at people, and generally trying to avoid their work, is about the worst possible way to debunk people / arguments / etc. And it sure is interesting, how different we are, as when people come after my worldview etc, I dont run and dodge. I take it head on. How odd you guys, The Get Out There And Shout And Protest Movement / Party, when things gets all sciency & academic you run for the hills.

Off topic? Nope. The Mind / Brain Sciences that are at the core of everything that is we humans, and to do with everything going on the the realms of politics and societies, which is how I frame the bulk of my work, these university 'Academics Class' type people who will be out marching, they know full well all the stuff I talk about, and this knowledge they've weaponized in their NuLiberal Neo-Marxist ErWhatever ambitions to socially engineer society into... the (real endgame) this Emerging Technologies overdrive of a Technocrat Utopia. It was most interesting for me, during the election, how the Hillary people kept on about stuff like "Low Information" voters (people who haven't attended universities which are more about political indoctrination these days than actual classical academic 'education'), even more proud where they when all of Silicon Valley (the Transhumanist Technocrat Class, who have been another core front of the SJW fountainhead) were all in for Hillary.

This just 'PROVED' all the 'smart' people were against Trump, right?

It wasn't even 'really' about Trump, per se. It still isn't.

It was about the NuLiberal SJW ultimate divide & conquer agenda. Look up the Technological Singularity, look up Immortalism (indefinite liefspans via technology), lookup Transhumanism, take a real good look, and then look at the top tech firms roles in it (Google a particularly choice example), and then look at the Academic Class' core fountainhead role in the SJW mania front, and how the national university laboratory infrastructure, along with Silicon Valley, with DARPA / NASA / NIST / NIH linking it all together as one unified apparatus, is all (since around the time of 9/11) bent on breakneck ushering in Strong AI / Artificial General Intelligence ASAP no matter the costs of doing it as wrecklessly as possible. Why would they go about it like that? They intend to be "Gods", enhanced by integrating with technology, with indefinite lifespans via technology. And if you think everyone will get to live forever along with todays Power Elite's, then you haven't been paying much attention to how the world really works.



And here I'll spell it out for you: both the rampant militarism, and global warming doomsday thrusts, have been as one justifying open ended budgets into AI and super computers, possibly into the trillions of dollars considering the Pentagon black budgets etc...

All this stuff I've been on about in this thread, for over a decade now, it's all connected. And as Noam Chomsky would say, it isn't a conspiracy theory, it's merely an institutional analysis. What a shame he's apparently into this Cult of SJW BS the rest of the Academic Class has been bent socially engineering into all of society.



PS: Ever wonder why there's what is it 5 or 6 'liberal' news networks news networks, but only 1 'conservative' news network (FOX)?
Hint: it isn't just because that's what smart people are into. It's abotu the real social engineering push, which absolutely is the liberal / PC etc trend the social engineers (which mainly herald from the Academic Class) have cooked up. If you think its for the greater good, guess again, its about the Emerging Technologies front. That's their endgame. That's their promised land. You can join their team, try to get a 'ticket' on their 'bus' (by being a collaborator in the destruction of the Homo Sapiens species), but good luck with that.

Here you go, Berkeley professor of what was it Philosophy & Critical Thinking, out goosestepping as a pseudo-antifascist "Antifa":

Nope! No diabolical agenda of the wittingly manipulative variety to be found here, folks. Move along and whatever you do, ignore the outside views!

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Climate Change is real. The 'Anthropogenic' part less so. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. 400 ppm is still considered a starvation level for plant life. As for impact on climate, the effect of rising CO2 may have been significant in the last century but it is an inverse logarithmic effect, not geometric or linear.

edmhdotme.wordpress.com...

"The logarithmic diminution effect is the likely reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousand parts per million by volume, (ppmv)."

So I say, more CO2! Best way to feed people is with more agriculture.

At first everythings great. But like many marriages the longer they go on the worse things get. Until eventually you wake up one morning and find your stuff on the lawn. Mother nature can be very similar except instead of taking the house she destroys it.

If and when that happens, I would rather we have a robust energy sector and thriving technology base than revert to clay houses and seaweed sandwiches, waiting for a windy day to power our pinwheels.

a reply to: lostbooklook nasa under obama had the director stating there policy going forward was to study climate change and foster friendship with our friends in middle east . www.telegraph.co.uk... trump said rightfully so nasa should be reaching out into space not the crap science feel good stuff it has been promoting last few years. remember obama killed the constellation program.trump as a businessman realizes there is gold in space so to speak. and epa yes it too needs a shuffle. flint has been without clean water since 2013 . obama said there was nothing he could do. now under trump 110 million dollars have been given to flint as a grant to replace there contaminated infrastructure. yes some scientist are worried now they are going to be called to carpet to show they actually doing something and not just enjoying the free money train.

a reply to: lostbook

Great. Something else for the liberal l33t to complain about. Science.

Go figure.

originally posted by: waftist

originally posted by: yuppa

No you arent crazy. just easily swayed by fake numbers and padded graphs and charts.

Couldn't the same be said for science opposition? Granted there have been some misinformation or lies from a minority of scientists, muddying the waters of empirical truths, but we still rely on the findings of real science, that is shared and repeatable from numerous organizations,as opposed to just a few.

I get your disdain and realize the word 'science' has been tainted these days, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. With information so accessible these days we as individuals can become better informed,which must include cross referencing sources and not just buying single articles and claims. It worries me that science is being viewed as bogus in such a sweeping general fashion, but it is still the primary method and foundation to discovery, innovation truth and facts.

I used to consistently score high on Earth sciences and science in general in school and college. I have a good understanding of whats going on and its not man that is the cause.
Majority of CO2 dont even come from man himself. ALso CO2 is needed to regulate in the creation of cloud formation which in turn leads to covering which reflect back energy out of the atmosphere. ALso clouds condense rain and also scrub a percentage out of the atmosphere to feed plants and the cycle of rain.

Stopping CO2 comepletly will kill the earth. but thats what those chowderheads want.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Gothmog

No where near all of humanity "know by now", because what you just stated is only theorised by radical right wing fundamentalists, and people who know literally nothing about thermodynamics, chemistry, or the climate. Furthermore, whether you think it was caused by people or not, denying the climate is changing does not make you witty, ahead of the game, or a thinker beyond your time. That sort of thinking is what we call "moronic" and for damned good reason.

Its like not believing in ballistics, and putting the barrel of a gun in your mouth before pulling the trigger, just to prove a point. The difference is, that doing it with climate related sciences, means that everyone dies, not just one, singular idiot.

Ah the old denying the climate is changing line. I do not deny the climate is changing. Its a natural cycle. what we do deny is the causes and severity of the causes. Scientist are all about the money or perks with their job these days.

out of millions of scientist there are only around 10 K to 45K in the field of climate study. Out of those 3 percent say they disagree on MAN MADE global warming. But but then the majority says.... SOmetimes the majority are wrong. Remember when earth was the center of the universe? Majority disproven.
The Higgs bosom was another where the majority said it didnt exist or could not be proven.

originally posted by: WUNK22
What the hell is NASA doing in the great global warming swindle?? They should keep their focus on space! As far as co2 and great die offs do to crop failure. I thought 2* warming and high co2 was supposed to be helpful for crop development. I guess fact will always prove whatever the agenda is, pro or anti. Humans, they make me sick!!

Shhh they want to believe the lie.. if they keep waiting on it and it don't happen as so far NONE of AL's predictions, not one, have come true. As and Environmental scientist i am afraid these buffoons buying the lies hook line and sinker, are ruining the reputation of my field of choice. THAT i hate. Reputable science is NEVER settled by consensus but by data. I give them the science of the middle ages as some proof but they want get it.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Kandinsky

I can't see it making any difference to the Trump administration because they don't trust science so why would they believe scientists?

Now why would you say that?

Simply because he is critical of anthropomorphic climate change, that does not mean he and his administration do not 'trust' science.

So right to be critical of this that it is appalling to see the people fall for the lies.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: waftist

originally posted by: yuppa

No you arent crazy. just easily swayed by fake numbers and padded graphs and charts.

Couldn't the same be said for science opposition? Granted there have been some misinformation or lies from a minority of scientists, muddying the waters of empirical truths, but we still rely on the findings of real science, that is shared and repeatable from numerous organizations,as opposed to just a few.

I get your disdain and realize the word 'science' has been tainted these days, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. With information so accessible these days we as individuals can become better informed,which must include cross referencing sources and not just buying single articles and claims. It worries me that science is being viewed as bogus in such a sweeping general fashion, but it is still the primary method and foundation to discovery, innovation truth and facts.

I used to consistently score high on Earth sciences and science in general in school and college. I have a good understanding of whats going on and its not man that is the cause.
Majority of CO2 dont even come from man himself. ALso CO2 is needed to regulate in the creation of cloud formation which in turn leads to covering which reflect back energy out of the atmosphere. ALso clouds condense rain and also scrub a percentage out of the atmosphere to feed plants and the cycle of rain.

Stopping CO2 comepletly will kill the earth. but thats what those chowderheads want.

The Earth got along just fine before we started burning fossil fuels, so I fail to see your point with regards to us stopping fossil fuel use. The problem is simple: we're emitting more greenhouse gases than the Earth can deal with.

Suppose the Earth's carbon cycle is a container, one that can expand and contract over time. It's usually near capacity, and expands or contracts to a small extent to deal with changes in the cycle. We are overwhelming the capacity to such an extent that its capability to expand is not keeping up with the rapidity of our emissions.

Atmospheric CO2 ppm would not be rising by an amount somewhat less than what we are estimated to emit annually, if the above were not the case.

At this point it is likely too late... dimming we cause is reducing radiation reaching the surface, and a halt to fossil fuel use could lead to a degree Celsius or more increase in surface temperatures rather rapidly. Continued fossil fuel use will continue to redistribute heat nearer to the surface. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place, and it would have been nice had we started twenty years ago:


Alas, the thread I explained further in was closed, so I can't quote it...

The physics - yes, physics - behind it are fairly straightforward and have been known about for over a century:
1) The Stefan-Boltzmann law explains how we calculate what temperature the Earth should be at, based on: its size, its distance from the Sun, and its reflectivity.
2) The Earth is warmer at the surface than it should be, but also cooler higher in the atmosphere than it should be.
3) There are gases known as greenhouse gases, which reduce outbound infrared radiation - effectively redistributing heating closer to the surface (satellite measurements from 1970):

4) Increasing any of these gases increases the reduction on outbound infrared radiation, which means surface warming and higher atmosphere cooling.

We have evidence of both. For example, here are trends from UAH (temperature of the lower troposphere and the lower stratosphere):
TLT (near surface): +0.12 degrees Celsius trend
TLS (higher atmosphere): -0.30 degrees Celsius trend

I believe the harder to measure surface (near surface is not the same) is likely even higher than the TLT trend, because of the much stronger opposing TLS trend.

If you really, actually, truly want to challenge the science - if you have some real argument against those 4 simple items - please counter it. That is the core rationale behind man-made climate change, and it would be better for us all if it weren't true.

Unfortunately, as this gentleman said:

"Just like Noah, we've been given some information about what is going to happen in the future, and we can prepare for that future, or we can decide to dismiss the facts," Foret says. "What we decide to do will directly impact the future of our families and our communities. Me, I'm going to build a boat. Facts don't change based on my ability to stomach them."

This is the true indictment of our current society - belief seems to be held in higher regard than fact.
If you've already driven off a cliff, saying it ain't happening as you're falling is only a coping mechanism to the harsh reality that awaits.

originally posted by: Echo007
Scientists are mad about all the easy money for publishing hogwash is drying up. All the scientists in the world can't predict the weather in two weeks from now, but were suppose to believe they can predict the climate in 5-20 years from now.

DING DING DING, here we have someone who gets it 100%. Science is in danger due to this BS. Except for places like Hawaii and Antarctica no one can predict weather withing 5 degrees a week out.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: lostbook

The March for Politicized "Science" Because We Just Cant Quit Running Out Of Reasons To Protest And Riot Because We're Totally Nuts Because Hillary Lost Because Of Russia And Sexists And Stuff And This Is Just What We Do Now Forever More

I am surprised you didnt use your classic liberals = nazis to attempt discredit it. It is a march against politicized science (GOP climate denial being the biggest example) but you try to turn it around and claim its pushing politicized science.

**slow clap**

But liberals, the true ones, are not Nazis. It is the PROGRESSIVES that are, plain and simple.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: waftist

originally posted by: yuppa

No you arent crazy. just easily swayed by fake numbers and padded graphs and charts.

Couldn't the same be said for science opposition? Granted there have been some misinformation or lies from a minority of scientists, muddying the waters of empirical truths, but we still rely on the findings of real science, that is shared and repeatable from numerous organizations,as opposed to just a few.

I get your disdain and realize the word 'science' has been tainted these days, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. With information so accessible these days we as individuals can become better informed,which must include cross referencing sources and not just buying single articles and claims. It worries me that science is being viewed as bogus in such a sweeping general fashion, but it is still the primary method and foundation to discovery, innovation truth and facts.

I used to consistently score high on Earth sciences and science in general in school and college. I have a good understanding of whats going on and its not man that is the cause.
Majority of CO2 dont even come from man himself. ALso CO2 is needed to regulate in the creation of cloud formation which in turn leads to covering which reflect back energy out of the atmosphere. ALso clouds condense rain and also scrub a percentage out of the atmosphere to feed plants and the cycle of rain.

Stopping CO2 comepletly will kill the earth. but thats what those chowderheads want.

The Earth got along just fine before we started burning fossil fuels, so I fail to see your point with regards to us stopping fossil fuel use. The problem is simple: we're emitting more greenhouse gases than the Earth can deal with.

Suppose the Earth's carbon cycle is a container, one that can expand and contract over time. It's usually near capacity, and expands or contracts to a small extent to deal with changes in the cycle. We are overwhelming the capacity to such an extent that its capability to expand is not keeping up with the rapidity of our emissions.

Earth's CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm. At 400 ppm we are barely above what is a critically low level to support plant life. We are not overwhelming anything.

www.geocraft.com...

Atmospheric CO2 ppm would not be rising by an amount somewhat less than what we are estimated to emit annually, if the above were not the case.

The plants are thanking us for that.

a reply to: Teikiatsu
That's a meaningless data point and a deflection from the issue. Humans have never lived at that level of CO2.

Counter those 4 underlying points, which it seems you have excised in your response.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: waftist

originally posted by: yuppa

No you arent crazy. just easily swayed by fake numbers and padded graphs and charts.

Couldn't the same be said for science opposition? Granted there have been some misinformation or lies from a minority of scientists, muddying the waters of empirical truths, but we still rely on the findings of real science, that is shared and repeatable from numerous organizations,as opposed to just a few.

I get your disdain and realize the word 'science' has been tainted these days, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. With information so accessible these days we as individuals can become better informed,which must include cross referencing sources and not just buying single articles and claims. It worries me that science is being viewed as bogus in such a sweeping general fashion, but it is still the primary method and foundation to discovery, innovation truth and facts.

I used to consistently score high on Earth sciences and science in general in school and college. I have a good understanding of whats going on and its not man that is the cause.
Majority of CO2 dont even come from man himself. ALso CO2 is needed to regulate in the creation of cloud formation which in turn leads to covering which reflect back energy out of the atmosphere. ALso clouds condense rain and also scrub a percentage out of the atmosphere to feed plants and the cycle of rain.

Stopping CO2 comepletly will kill the earth. but thats what those chowderheads want.

The Earth got along just fine before we started burning fossil fuels, so I fail to see your point with regards to us stopping fossil fuel use. The problem is simple: we're emitting more greenhouse gases than the Earth can deal with.

Suppose the Earth's carbon cycle is a container, one that can expand and contract over time. It's usually near capacity, and expands or contracts to a small extent to deal with changes in the cycle. We are overwhelming the capacity to such an extent that its capability to expand is not keeping up with the rapidity of our emissions.

Earth's CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm. At 400 ppm we are barely above what is a critically low level to support plant life. We are not overwhelming anything.

www.geocraft.com...

Atmospheric CO2 ppm would not be rising by an amount somewhat less than what we are estimated to emit annually, if the above were not the case.

The plants are thanking us for that.

Here again Teik is another someone who gets it. I think the cynic in me sees this as the elite don't want us "useless eaters" and they are using the gullible ones like you guys on ATS that are actually attacking the scientific method I use with their own bad theory that man can predict the weather months/years/decades from now and that man is causing a major climate change. This crap is SIMPLY helping the elite win. They want less food.

a reply to: Justoneman

By 'gets it' you mean picking and choosing what bits of science you decide to accept as fact?

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Justoneman

By 'gets it' you mean picking and choosing what bits of science you decide to accept as fact?

No he ,not you , gets the science is not settled. The CO2 needs to be higher for plant life to thrive. We are literally seeing the affect of less CO2 hurting our ability to put food on the table. The scientific method is being bastardized by the elite.