US scientists to engage in politics...

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,554
Twitter
No
[h=1]Scientists mobilise against 'fear of facts' in age of Trump[/h]21 April 2017 Last updated at 23:02 BST
Climate change, pollution, medicine - scientists are learning even if you ignore politics, politics won't ignore you. Now many men and women in the sciences are mobilising to make their concerns heard.




Scientists mobilise against 'fear of facts' in age of Trump - BBC News


Still the main fact ain't there. By how much does our emitting cause global warming? 5% or 50%?? Nobody will say. They don't know.

Look at the "public trust in science" graph at 0.44 secs. Only a tiny 40% of conservatives have trust in science any more - as if it is a religion.

In comparison, a vast 50% of "moderates" do have trust in science. 40% to 50%... what a relief eh? Or not much.


What they do know for sure, with a confidence interval about 95%, is that cutbacks in research mean cutbacks in their earnings.

How to Calculate Confidence Interval: 6 Steps (with Pictures)
 


firefly123

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
28,225
[h=1]Scientists mobilise against 'fear of facts' in age of Trump[/h]21 April 2017 Last updated at 23:02 BST
Climate change, pollution, medicine - scientists are learning even if you ignore politics, politics won't ignore you. Now many men and women in the sciences are mobilising to make their concerns heard.




Scientists mobilise against 'fear of facts' in age of Trump - BBC News


Still the main fact ain't there. By how much does our emitting cause global warming? 5% or 50%?? Nobody will say. They don't know.

Look at the "public trust in science" graph at 0.44 secs. Only a tiny 40% of conservatives have trust in science any more - as if it is a religion.

In comparison, a vast 50% of "moderates" do have trust in science. 40% to 50%... what a relief eh? Or not much.


What they do know for sure, with a confidence interval about 95%, is that cutbacks in research mean cutbacks in their earnings.

How to Calculate Confidence Interval: 6 Steps (with Pictures)
Yeah. Scientists. All they care about is the money.

And the bitches. The sweet, sweet bitches.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
Im not convinced by the science behind global warming, but give the choice Ill support it over Trumps moronic 'burn the world' politics any day.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,554
Twitter
No
Im not convinced by the science behind global warming, but give the choice Ill support it over Trumps moronic 'burn the world' politics any day.

I agree, the truth is somewhere in the middle of "we don't know (sorry!)" and "we don't care".
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
I agree, the truth is somewhere in the middle of "we don't know (sorry!)" and "we don't care".
Ultimately a world where renewable energy replaces buying oil from religious nutter princes in Saudi Arabia would be a far better world.

If we need to lie about global warming to get there... so be it.
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,906
Yeah. Scientists. All they care about is the money.

And the bitches. The sweet, sweet bitches.
Yeah, and pumping all that CO2 is god's will, we've always done it, its natural so it must be fine.
 

gerhard dengler

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
46,739
Science is very dependent upon funding from the public purse.

With budget constraints starting to hit in the USA (they're approaching their debt ceiling in May), the science industry are looking to protect their funding.

It's not about facts. It's about finance. As ever.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,148
Science is very dependent upon funding from the public purse.

With budget constraints starting to hit in the USA (they're approaching their debt ceiling in May), the science industry are looking to protect their funding.

It's not about facts. It's about finance. As ever.
It is about protecting vital research. Research that makes the world a better place.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,554
Twitter
No
Ultimately a world where renewable energy replaces buying oil from religious nutter princes in Saudi Arabia would be a far better world.

If we need to lie about global warming to get there... so be it.

I prefer that angle, but why should we lie?

Also we're below targets, so cut us some slack.... if it was a huge problem, and we all were told to go back to using wheelbarrows and ponies, it turns out Ireland's CO2/GHG burn is less than 1% of the world's.

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/air/airemissions/ghgprojections/EPA_2017_GHG_Emission_Projections_Summary_Report.pdf
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
If research is commercial....

How many new antibiotics have been developed in the last 40 years? The answer is none, even though millions of people die each year in the west due to untreatable infections.
 

Erudite Caveman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
7,329
Im not convinced by the science behind global warming, but give the choice Ill support it over Trumps moronic 'burn the world' politics any day.
Is you 'not being convinced' down to your inability to properly appraise the science or the science itself?
 

mossyman

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
4,948

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,266
Is you 'not being convinced' down to your inability to properly appraise the science or the science itself?
it lends itself to suspecting that lots of people are getting paid a lot of money to infinitely tinker with models where there is no real product at the end. if all the public money that has gone into climate science had gone directly into actual technological research , fusion power might be closer or there might have been bigger developments in renewable energy, electric vehicles etc. the whole thing just seems too unfocused.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
Is you 'not being convinced' down to your inability to properly appraise the science or the science itself?
This isnt the thread to get into the details but in summary CO2 warming effect saturates at a maximum of 1C additional warming. After that the theory relies on unproven secondary effects such as increased water vapour. The whole theory also assumes that the earth has no negative feedback mechanism - only positive feedback. This seems unlikely given that the earth has been stable for millions of years.

In any case I think there are plenty of other reasons to reduce burning of fossil fuels.
 

Erudite Caveman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
7,329
it lends itself to suspecting that lots of people are getting paid a lot of money to infinitely tinker with models where there is no real product at the end. if all the public money that has gone into climate science had gone directly into actual technological research , fusion power might be closer or there might have been bigger developments in renewable energy, electric vehicles etc. the whole thing just seems too unfocused.
Of course it is unfocused. That is what makes the rest of your point to be bogus nonsense. There is no conspiracy. If someone cooks results, there are PhD students all over the place who would love to catch them out, because it would raise their profile.

Look, BP and Exxon are convinced.
 

tsarbomb

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
4,966
They're just another interest group looking for more money. I'm not in the slightest bit surprised at this.
 

Supra

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
2,167
I blame the Cosmetic sector and the Health Food sector for lack of trust in science over Trump.
 

Erudite Caveman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
7,329
This isnt the thread to get into the details but in summary CO2 warming effect saturates at a maximum of 1C additional warming. After that the theory relies on unproven secondary effects such as increased water vapour. The whole theory also assumes that the earth has no negative feedback mechanism - only positive feedback. This seems unlikely given that the earth has been stable for millions of years.

In any case I think there are plenty of other reasons to reduce burning of fossil fuels.
I'm afraid it is barstool horsesh!t to reduce 'the theory' down to a statement like that.

Even I as a random punter, off the top of my head, can think of one of the negative feedbacks is the increased rate of growth of plants which in turn will lock up more CO2, but even that is a massive oversimplification. All it does is disprove your statement, and suggest that your scepticism is rooted in an inability to appraise the science rather than the science itself.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,266
Of course it is unfocused. That is what makes the rest of your point to be bogus nonsense. There is no conspiracy. If someone cooks results, there are PhD students all over the place who would love to catch them out, because it would raise their profile.

Look, BP and Exxon are convinced.
whoa who said conspiracy. there are 3 elements here basic science, modelling and economic action based on the modelling. one could be confident in the science bit, modelling not so much and action based off the modelling is monkeys with typewriter levels of confidence.
there are plenty of reasons to de carbonise outside of climate issues and it will be tech driven, so focus on the tech which is what the west is good at.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top