The War On Science

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Mike, Feb 26, 2015.

  1. Edika

    Edika SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,340
    Likes Received:
    370
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Location:
    Londonderry, N.Ireland, UK
    This is the fault in the logic of most people who introduce political bias in scientific conversation. But it's not only the people's fault and into that much I'll agree with you.

    The way things work in any country is a for a candidate to peek a theme that will be his campaign and message to get him elected, depending on how popular the notion is at that period of time. Some politicians might be more sincere than others and believe in their campaign and message most of them don't. I am not sure if Gore believes in global warming (yes global warming not climate change) but that was the theme of his campaign and he seemed to pursue it even after his defeat in the presidential elections.

    This provided benefits and drawbacks. One of the benefits was that an issue that is quite real got more exposure and it wasn't just scientists trying to get the attention of the population and one of the drawbacks is that it became a political issue when it is actually a survival issue. Not of the earth (the earth doesn't give two ....s about humans and life) and other species but mainly our survival and our current way of life as we know it. The second part of my last sentence is another big discussion but let's not focus on that for the time being. On one hand scientists grasped on to the exposure to try and get their message across but on the other hand it became a debate for people with political agendas and camps where set from either side.

    I'll tell you one thing, scientists care about the facts and will support the facts regardless of political beliefs. It's not a left wing thing as I'm sure a big amount of that 90 something percent of scientists supporting global warming are not tree hugging hippies holding hands and singing songs for the well being of mother earth. I'll bet you that a lot of them are conservatives.
    And we come back to the first sentence of this paragraph, that scientific facts help you transcend political bias. Unless there is an immediate benefit and profit to be made by supporting an opposing position which is the case for this issue.

    Unfortunately the main title of this thread sets the mood correctly, that there is a war on science. There was always a war on science, especially when it didn't suit the narrative of any political system in place. Or to say it a bit more accurately, some science was ok but a lot wasn't.
     
  2. estabon37

    estabon37 Melodica Attack!

    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    67
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Fury Lane (it's quieter than Fury Road)
    I don't run my AC for more than 10-20 days a year in a part of the world that regularly breaks 40C (104F) in summer, nor do I run my heater very often in winter. I ride my bike or walk rather than drive when I'm not in a rush, buy second hand when I can, recycle as much as possible, have a compost to reduce landfill, and donate items to charity that I might otherwise throw away (clothes, books I don't want any more, etc).

    All of this probably does very little. The problem is that it's hard to calculate our indirect impact on the environment; for example, do the companies I purchase from have low environmental impact? It's a tricky question to answer. This article points out that though supermarkets in the UK only contribute to 1% of the UK's total electricity-related greenhouse gas emissions, it's really difficult to measure their impact through freight - products shipped by air or sea, and then trucked from depot to shelf. Companies have little incentive to change their systems, because it would likely lead to increased costs, which would lead to increased pricing, which would lead to reduced sales, which would lead to no substantial change to environmental impact, unless every retailer were forced to change at once.

    Having said all that, I've heard that air conditioners are one of the biggest contributers to carbon emissions by individuals, so it's pretty awesome that you use it lightly. They're really only a problem if you're on a coal-powered grid, though older ones use ozone-depleting cooling agents (link from Nat Geo). My partner and I tend to hang out at her parent's place in summer - they have solar panels, so running an air conditioner all day doesn't really harm anything (as long as the filters are clean). I'd install solar myself, but I'm both renting and broke, so...
     
  3. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,382
    Likes Received:
    330
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    I don't like to play holier-than-thou about my lifestyle, but I don't care for your accusations of hypocrisy either. So:

    My wife and I have driven a Prius for the last ten years; it's been our only car for about 18 months. We work at the same university, so we commute together, and we do most of our grocery shopping and other errands on the way home from work. We run the HVAC systems in our house minimally; the house is built into the side of a ridge, so it's a little warmer in winter and cooler in summer than you might otherwise expect. In the winter, we use the propane furnace just to keep a floor on the temperature (55-63 degrees, depending on time of day and occupancy) and heat the lower level living space in the evening with a woodstove; the warm air circulates upward to keep the bedroom comfortable overnight. Some of our wood comes from trees on our property (we live on 12 acres, mostly wetland) and the rest from local farmers' woodlots. Our household appliances were chosen with energy efficiency as a major consideration. We grow much of our own produce, and store surplus for the off-season (canning, freezing, root cellar); our purchased food is selected with local and organic considerations at the forefront (buying local supports our neighbors as well as minimizing transport miles). My wife is a spreadsheet junkie, and tracks our energy usage rigorously: we use about 25% of the US household average in all categories except propane, which is about 35% (our water heater is propane-powered, and it accounts for about a third of our propane usage).

    So, yeah: money --> mouth.
     
  4. pushpull7

    pushpull7 Banned

    Messages:
    4,297
    Likes Received:
    148
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Location:
    sac
    That's fine, but it doesn't address most people. Sorry you took it "personally" like I was saying every single person doesn't do anything. (which isn't what I meant)

    My point, and it wasn't holier than thou, was that people bitch about the environment w/o actually doing anything to improve the situation. Everyone's turds stink like ..... You get kooks like sheryl crow with using "just one" piece of TP instead of realizing that her tours take more of an effect on the environment even if a human could use "just one" and use the two sided other piece as a napkin :lol:

    She isn't going to change. She's not going to use less guitar strings, jet fuel, ciggies (since the butts litter all the streets in the world, I consider that pretty bad for the environment) less waste, less energy.

    Yeah, it's long winded but highways, skyscapers, cars (even a ....ing prius) guitar frets, drinking water, sewage, power plants, airplanes, tv's, ipads, computers, batteries, cell phones.....I'll stop for now :lol: ... These are ....ing destructive.

    And since it seems to go over everyone's head. In the 70's we had less than 3 billion on the planet. In that short period of time, it went up to now well over 7 billion.

    Do you think that any amount of "cutting back" can keep up with that?

    Yeah, I've heard a couple of knuckleheads say "well what, you shouldn't do anything?" which is absurd.

    Take care of your own house before preaching. Being pissed off at republicans for environmental issues is idiotic. It's all the people. People are just trying to get by...

    One more thing, and it goes back to the nutty idea that if you "oppose" the al gore method, you are not being scientific....is that climate change was happening as early as a the "little ice age" (which I'm sure hardly anyone knows about) Surely humans we're not responsible for that? Try and show a little perspective instead of jumping on people that don't share the same opinion, maybe then it would be possible to figure out what needs to be next?
     
  5. Edika

    Edika SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,340
    Likes Received:
    370
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Location:
    Londonderry, N.Ireland, UK
    Your points of people not doing enough by themselves are valid as well as the hypocrisy of some celebrities as you mentioned. This reminded me of the recent food bank incident with Gwyneth Paltrow.
    A few comments on that though as aside from the pollution caused by individuals a bigger share of it comes from industries. Marketing and advertisement push on new products daily which we, the people, consume like lemmings all over the globe. There is an interaction between the two with the industry side mainly having the upper hand. But if a big percentage of consumers did the simplest thing they can do, boycott X company because it's not reducing their Carbon foot print and are against environmental policies then you'll see them changing their tune really quickly. However when a part of the people try to point out these issues about consumerism and a cleaner environmentally, less polluting way of life, they're labelled as communist/anarchist treehuggers that want to destroy the free worlds way of life and impeach on their right and all that illiterate nonsense. Or receive the least intelligent of arguments like "and what do you do in your personal life, are you the saint you're proclaiming to be and judge us mere mortals for our putrid ways of life?". Yes practice what you preach is important but understanding simple logic arguments, regardless of the actions of the person making the arguments, is equally important.
    Honestly you're falling into that trap again where you make it into a political thing vs an environmental thing. Personally I couldn't care less if Gore said what he said and if it's the Republicans opposing environmental change. All I see is data supporting global warming and on the other side a bunch of high functioning apes (for apes standards) denying the data for sort sighted benefits.
    ElRay already showed data supporting that our influence has pushed global warming over the more naturally cycled fluctuations over a period of hundreds of thousands of years. If you still want to make it into a political issue then I'm sorry you're a big part of the problem, even if you live personally the cleanest more environmentally friendly life.
     
  6. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,382
    Likes Received:
    330
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    You asked "how many of you put your money where your mouth is?" That's not a question about "most people" - that's a direct challenge to the posters in this thread, and I took it as such.

    Obviously, yes. A 99% reduction in energy use, as an example, would more than make up for the added people on the planet since the '70s. That's not a realistic goal. A better question is "what targets for reduction in energy use are reasonable, and how can these targets contribute to an *overall* energy use profile that's sustainable for the planet in the long term?" Reduction in energy use *has* to be a part of a sustainable long-term plan - it's the only component that doesn't involve hand-waving invocations of not-yet-available power generation and storage technologies or unrealistic assumptions about buildouts of nuclear power and conversion of heavy industries from fossil fuels to electricity.


    "Hardly anyone knows about" the Little Ice Age, except the people that have been bringing it up for years as a challenge to the prevailing scientific consensus on climate change, and the scientists who have been (more or less) patiently answering that objection. See: What ended the Little Ice Age?. You're getting jumped on because your arguments are played out, and because we're tired of having to point out their played-outness to people who are unable or unwilling to do their own damn research.

    /rant
     
  7. ElRay

    ElRay Mostly Harmless

    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    409
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Location:
    NoIL
    I thought you were leaving?
    Strawman, Composition, Genetic & Argument from Ignorance Fallacies
    Tu Quoque Fallacy

    As stated before, please provide some actual evidence, data, reasoning, etc. to disprove anthropogenic climate change.

    EDIT: I found this: http://www.seekfind.net/Head_in_the_Sand__Ostrich_Fallacy.html looking for the "textbook" name for the "head in the sand", "I don't see any ..." fallacy. Too funny, it's a site that tries to teach logic and reasoning to people arguing for mythology as fact.
     
  8. ElRay

    ElRay Mostly Harmless

    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    409
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Location:
    NoIL
    You can't pop-in, spew your nonsense, and expect it to just be accepted. There's no attack mode being activated, it's just people responding to your posts.

    Freedom of speech is not freedom from comment, critique or criticism.
     
  9. ElRay

    ElRay Mostly Harmless

    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    409
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Location:
    NoIL
    Tu Quoque, yet again.
    Strawman, Composition, Genetic, Red Herring, etc. fallacies plus a little bit of "let me irrationally sharp-shoot everything you post, but don't you dare point out any misinformation, misconceptions, logical errors, etc. that I'm spewing" hypocrisy.
     
  10. pushpull7

    pushpull7 Banned

    Messages:
    4,297
    Likes Received:
    148
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Location:
    sac
    Who the .... are you? :lol:
     
  11. ElRay

    ElRay Mostly Harmless

    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    409
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Location:
    NoIL
    Basically pushpull7 & Spaced are sealioning, minus the polite fa├žade.
     
  12. pushpull7

    pushpull7 Banned

    Messages:
    4,297
    Likes Received:
    148
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Location:
    sac
    You keep telling yourself that but you're not my mom and last time I checked you are not a mod or own this forum.

    So, if I want to oppose you, tough .....
     
  13. pushpull7

    pushpull7 Banned

    Messages:
    4,297
    Likes Received:
    148
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Location:
    sac
    ^^yes, that's what it was

    Except one problem, you didn't say anything or prove a single point.

    What part of "I'm not disagreeing that there is global warming/climate change/whatever ....ing phrase is being used" do you not understand? What, do I have to be like your teacher and go back, find them, and then cut and paste them to prove it? I don't think you'd even believe that! :lol:
     
  14. pushpull7

    pushpull7 Banned

    Messages:
    4,297
    Likes Received:
    148
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Location:
    sac
    And another thing :lol:

    I live in central/northern cali. Do you think for one minute I don't notice the ....ing baking hell of hell here? I've lived here most of my life, it's ....ing BAD. Reservoirs are critical, there is no ....ing rain/snow anymore, the Sierras are turning into a desert, and my dumb-ass house isn't going to be worth 10 cents in 3 years at this rate!

    Where do you get the idea that I'm saying there is no global warming/climate change? Are you ....ing kidding me? Just because I don't like crow's bull.... about "one"

    Get real.
     
  15. UnderTheSign

    UnderTheSign SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    2,998
    Likes Received:
    205
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Location:
    West Coast, The Netherlands
    Is this the second coming of GoldDragon and Eric Christian combined?
     
  16. estabon37

    estabon37 Melodica Attack!

    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    67
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Fury Lane (it's quieter than Fury Road)
    It's starting to look that way.

    One of the points that is repeatedly being made is that local conditions are more or less irrelevant. We're trying to look at the bigger picture here. I grew up and currently live in an area that endured about a decade of drought (technically, the whole country did, but we really felt it in the middle of the Murray-Darling Basin) on the planet's dryest inhabited continent. The drought eventually broke, though things did not simply go back to pre-drought times. Ironically, we've been hit by a series of floods in country's north the years since, including over the last couple of weeks.

    I've heard and read that extreme weather events such as these are byproducts of climate change, anthropogenic or otherwise. I've also heard and read that simply looking at your local conditions says absolutely nothing about the state of global climate change (despite what our mates at various news networks imply by bringing snow into the studio and then sarcastically yelling out "GLOBAL WARMING?!").

    Here's the larger problem within this thead (and a couple of others you've been posting in):

    Most of your posts contain some challenge, either to the people posting within the thread, or to prominent figures connected to the topic. When others respond to your challenges, you seem to feel you're being attacked in some way, start getting insulting and defensive, as well as dismissing the arguments of others without providing any evidence or reason for your dismissal. So, just for fun, here's the same treatment in return:

    Childish.

    Said and proved a stance against your points, and you ignored them.

    Truly ironic.

    Again, according to David Attenborough using actual research and statistics, yes.

    Right here is the best example. You issued a challenge, set the standards for that challenge, and then when a few people responded in kind, disproving your point somewhat in the process, you threw your arms up in the air and started ranting about Cheryl Crow. So, when nobody here fit your predetermined mould, you inserted one example of one person making one stupid claim - without providing any evidence for the existence of that claim - and then you're surprised when people like El Ray point out the flimsiness of your arguments.

    This is the second time I've come to this point in a thread you're posting in. If you seriously can't see the mistakes you're making, carefully read the responses of other posters here. Don't dismiss them. Hell, many of us disagree with one another all the time, but we back up our claims with evidence, research, and logic. You are not doing that. You are ignoring what you don't like, and taking every comment that disproves your points as a personal attack. If you are doing this deliberately, then you are a troll, and will be treated and reported as such (which I pointed out in another thread).

    At this stage, it seems you have three options: 1) be a little more intellectually rigorous; 2) be a little more mature in your responses ("You're not my mom". Really?), or; 3) leave.
     
  17. ElRay

    ElRay Mostly Harmless

    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    409
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Location:
    NoIL
    Tu Quoque Fallacy.

    Are you ever going to actually make a point?
     
  18. ElRay

    ElRay Mostly Harmless

    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    409
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Location:
    NoIL
    Oh the hypocrisy. :facepalm:
     
  19. ElRay

    ElRay Mostly Harmless

    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    409
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Location:
    NoIL
    Another short one that's many in one:
    • Non sequitur fallacy
    • Ad hominem
    • Red herring
    • Affirming the disjunct
    • Ignoratio elenchi
    • There's also a kind of reverse-Appeal to Authority here. As if the fact that I'm not you Mom makes my points invalid
    • and a simple plain, old, assumption from facts not in evidence. I very well could be your Mom.
    Non sequitur fallacy
    Is your reading comprehension that bad? I never said anything about censoring you. You're the one that claimed that you were taking your toys any going home like a petulant child. You can "oppose" me all you want, just provide evidence and lay-off the juvenile fallacies.
     

Share This Page