The Cancel Culture of Climate Change

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

which one do you consider a strawman argument ?

The "replication crisis" being evidence that the GBR is just fine.

If he is right, the implications are dire.

He isn't. And the implications are.

a reply to: Phage

The "replication crisis" being evidence that the GBR is just fine.

He names the crisis as just one of the arguments, other being that of hard core data on the reef.

He isn't. And the implications are.

So you say. Having in mind how academia functions like a herd and how much it "needs" climate crisis, I wouldnt jump to their defense just yet. Wouldnt be the first time someone getting railroaded for having a non consensus opinion.

Apparently he won the lawsuit against the university, which should at least tell you something...

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

He names the crisis as just one of the arguments,

And it is a strawman argument.

other being that of hard core data on the reef.

Which data?

Apparently he won the lawsuit against the university, which should at least tell you something...

You think it means he's right? Or that he was unlawfully terminated? Do you understand the difference?

“Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views,” Vasta said in his judgement.

“Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement.”

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: Phage

And it is a strawman argument.

so a notion that 50 % (let's make it 10 % if you wish) of peer reviewed science is un reproducible...is a strawman argument to you ?

Fine. Your words as a scientist.

Which data?

I'll try and find that for you.

You think it means he's right? Or that he was unlawfully terminated? Do you understand the difference?

and I said..."which should at least tell you something...to me it says that academia will not stand for differences of opinion in it's ranks. Which goes to show a pattern of single mindedness. Which in science...is baaaad.

I have to say...you're very superficial reader.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

so a notion that 50 % (let's make it 10 % if you wish) of peer reviewed science is un reproducible...is a strawman argument to you ?

Yes, it is. Even if that 50% of science is actually wrong, it doesn't make his right.

to me it says that academia will not stand for differences of opinion in it's ranks

to me it says that any evidence which appears to contradict established science in the extreme needs to be looked at with extreme skepticism.

How is it that you think science works?

I have to say...you're very superficial reader.

I have to say that when ad homs are necessary to support one's position, that position may not be very strong.

a reply to: Phage

Yes, it is. Even if that 50% of science is actually wrong, it doesn't make his right.

Just because you can just say it..like that.

So a 50 % of science might be wrong, but there is a 97 % consensus in there somewhere. How does that work for you ? 97 % of these people vetted the science which might be 50 % wrong or unreproducible ?

I have to say that when ad homs are necessary to support one's position, that position may not be very strong.

Ad hom ? Sorry man but that was not it. I stated a fact. You superficially assumed I was saying "look he won a lawsuit, therefore his science is right"...which I did not.

"Her books include “The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened,” published in February, in which she said the bears are not threatened. "

She wrote a book! *slaps forehead*
Why didn't I think of that? And have a great promotion running?

a reply to: Groot

I don't think you understood me. Its not the greenhouse gases that are causing problems, its our psychology. We're going into a cooling phase, which happens approximately every 500 years, which also happens to correspond with times of global unrest. I think the human mind has a limited ability to influence reality apart from physical interaction.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Groot

I don't think you understood me. Its not the greenhouse gases that are causing problems, its our psychology. We're going into a cooling phase, which happens approximately every 500 years, which also happens to correspond with times of global unrest. I think the human mind has a limited ability to influence reality apart from physical interaction.

Sorry if I didn't understand you, Please elaborate.

Sounds like an interesting theory.

a reply to: Groot

I'm just talking about manifestation, magick, faith, the "Law of Attraction" etc. It goes by different names, but the idea is that our individual perceptions have a way of shaping our reality. The more believable something is, the more likely it is to come true. Right now, the bulk of society is unstable and polarized. They perceive everything as a realistic threat, so what happens? Threats become reality. Hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, disasters of all kinds manifest. That's not to say that every event is an acausal manifestation of individuals/society, but that some of them could be...Manifest Destiny for example.

I didn't believe we had the psychic ability to shape our own reality until it started happening to me. I looked into the phenomenon, and it turns out that the founding fathers of Quantum Mechanics were somewhat divided on this issue. What qualifies as observation? What is randomness? What is consciousness? The psychologist Carl Jung wrote extensively on the power of the Collective Unconscious.

Think of it as the placebo effect extending outside of the body. Factor in the masses of frantic people, and you have a global time-bomb.

Some biologists are now exploring the possibility that the human brain could be a biological quantum computer. If that is the case, then our observations alone could trigger environmental change via changes in entanglement patterns.

Pollution is definitely a problem, but I think the bigger problem is the psychological instability of overall society.

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: incoserv
BUT WHAT ABOUT LITTLE GRETA?!

She's just a swedish teenage girl that found a niche to get away form the euro muslim rape capital that is swedistan.

I, honestly, don't blame her for finding a way to get away from that 3rd world country.

Sweden a third world country?

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: incoserv
BUT WHAT ABOUT LITTLE GRETA?!

She's just a swedish teenage girl that found a niche to get away form the euro muslim rape capital that is swedistan.

I, honestly, don't blame her for finding a way to get away from that 3rd world country.

Sweden a third world country?

I think you need an extreme scotch sarcasm translater to understand spocks comments.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Groot

I'm just talking about manifestation, magick, faith, the "Law of Attraction" etc. It goes by different names, but the idea is that our individual perceptions have a way of shaping our reality. The more believable something is, the more likely it is to come true. Right now, the bulk of society is unstable and polarized. They perceive everything as a realistic threat, so what happens? Threats become reality. Hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, disasters of all kinds manifest. That's not to say that every event is an acausal manifestation of individuals/society, but that some of them could be...Manifest Destiny for example.

I didn't believe we had the psychic ability to shape our own reality until it started happening to me. I looked into the phenomenon, and it turns out that the founding fathers of Quantum Mechanics were somewhat divided on this issue. What qualifies as observation? What is randomness? What is consciousness? The psychologist Carl Jung wrote extensively on the power of the Collective Unconscious.

Think of it as the placebo effect extending outside of the body. Factor in the masses of frantic people, and you have a global time-bomb.

Some biologists are now exploring the possibility that the human brain could be a biological quantum computer. If that is the case, then our observations alone could trigger environmental change via changes in entanglement patterns.

Pollution is definitely a problem, but I think the bigger problem is the psychological instability of overall society.

I understand what you are saying.

But that is a little extreme to think the masses effect the environment with their minds in that way. Maybe on a personal level, like I do, but not on that big of scale.

a reply to: Groot

Masses create massive effects.