A Place for Conservatives

[Red]

Back in 2006 when Al Gore said we were ten years away from this same moment did he have scientific backing or was he just making stuff up? If it was based on scientific opinion (as I believe it was) why has the "point of no return" been moved twice as far into the future as it originally was? What happened that averted the crisis in 2016?

From what I can glean at this point, thinking and dealving into it a bit more, it seems to me that Gore's book and movie helped promote climate change as an issue. And it sounds to me that he was not speaking for consensus science when he made the statement involving 10 years. So I assume thst would be Gore's mistake and responsibility, and not that of climate science. And I don't remember the film at all at this stage, but I don't have any reason to look to Al Gore in the first place. He popularized the issue, raised consciousness of it, and likely made other mistakes in the process. I doubt there was any scientific body that appointed him official spokesman for the science, either. I doubt there was any scientific consensus behind his statement at all, and if he avoids answering to that, or does not want to talk about it, that's on him. Not climate science.

 

[silesian]

The process you described was of quiet introspection, where people are just kindly checking each others work. That isn't what we have. Every newspaper has an article "Scientist clams groundbreaking new (fill in the blank.)" That process precedes most peer review. These battles are fought in the public before the peer review process and I would submit that taints the process. Once the scientist has been on Oprah, who the Hell cares what the review says. The dude is going to sell a million copies of his book. On the other hand, someone could have a perfectly plausible theory that is politically incorrect. How does peer review work for that? Are reviewers able to set aside their politics and personal beliefs and analyze the data on its merits? No. That isn't the way it works. On the other hand, you put forward a theory that enforces their beliefs it gets pushed to the top and skeptics are disfellowshipped. THAT is the process we have today for a lot of the sciences. Gender Studies, Nutrition, Climate Science, Economics, Social Science, and Parenting have all been tainted to some degree.

There is always an Inquisition, that never changes.

Your world of millionaire scientists on Oprah is amusing and false

And the actions you describe are from people who are not practicing the scientific method.

You can listen to the shysters and hack journalists if you please. Just stop confusing what they do with science.

 

[Heathme]

Here's a humorous look at the differences between most of us on climate change

 

[LogGrad98]

I know what you wrote. It was a bad response. You answered all of his questions with "well, there are many theories, here are some ones I heard of". What a terrible ****ing response. I responded with actual information about the speed of light and current state of understanding of the fate of the universe.

People amaze me.

What's amazing is your insistence on your unchanging interpretation of anything and everything regardless of any other info presented. Keep tilting at those windmills don.

 

[Safetydan]

Many people do not want to learn. Still other people may be "victims" of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which basically is simply thinking one knows more then one actually knows:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

Especially in this age of severe erosion of any trust or confidence in any source of "authority", be it political authority, scientific authority, religious authority, it's not all that uncommon for people to simply assume their own authority. I exaggerate this trend at times by suggesting we will eventually get to the point where, a patient needs open heart surgery, lets go out on the street and ask the first person, "yo, you wanna try your hand at heart surgery? Follow me". No patient would ever accept any such thing, but nowadays many will settle for the opinion of anyone except people actually trained for decades in just the subject they are interested in. Perish the thought, lol. Add to that a transition to a so-called Post Truth landscape, and they'll be no point in learning anything at all. Whatever you want to believe will be true to you, and if people with greater knowledge disagree, well they can always pound salt, lol.

This thread is a Dunning-Kruger **** storm and it's ****ing depressing. Why are we like this? Why are we always looking for validation and confirmation rather than learning and betterment? I need to stop getting on here early in the morning because I end up replying to this ****. Heathme in particular, your attitude is ****** and you clearly don't have the intelligence required to parse through the information that is available to us in this day and age. I don't even care that you're a conservative. I'm fairly conservative too. Go back to the drawing board and start over.

 

[BryonGotPushed]

You missed a few OP

https://nationalpolicy.institute
Https://www.stormfront.org
Https://www.infowars.com
Https://www.freerepublic.com
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Don’t forget www.breitbart.com fam

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Many people do not want to learn. Still other people may be "victims" of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which basically is simply thinking one knows more then one actually knows:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

Especially in this age of severe erosion of any trust or confidence in any source of "authority", be it political authority, scientific authority, religious authority, it's not all that uncommon for people to simply assume their own authority. I exaggerate this trend at times by suggesting we will eventually get to the point where, a patient needs open heart surgery, lets go out on the street and ask the first person, "yo, you wanna try your hand at heart surgery? Follow me". No patient would ever accept any such thing, but nowadays many will settle for the opinion of anyone except people actually trained for decades in just the subject they are interested in. Perish the thought, lol. Add to that a transition to a so-called Post Truth landscape, and they'll be no point in learning anything at all. Whatever you want to believe will be true to you, and if people with greater knowledge disagree, well they can always pound salt, lol.

Reference to Dunning Kruger is something that is being co-opted by everyone these days to put down their opponents. That said, our Doofus-in-Chief is a walking, talking embodiment of the Dunning Kruger Effect.

People will always have opinions, even on things well outside their areas of expertise, specialized knowledge, or even cursory knowledge, but in something with such weighting implications as climate change, the stakes are too high to allow motivated reasoning by non-experts, political ideologues, willfully ignorant, and financially compromised to dictate/dominate the policy debate.

 

[Gameface]

Reference to Dunning Kruger is something that is being co-opted by everyone these days to put down their opponents. That said, our Doofus-in-Chief is a walking, talking embodiment of the Dunning Kruger Effect.

People will always have opinions, even on things well outside their areas of expertise, specialized knowledge, or even cursory knowledge, but in something with such weighting implications as climate change, the stakes are too high to allow motivated reasoning by non-experts, political ideologues, willfully ignorant, and financially compromised to dictate/dominate the policy debate.

Wait, so who's supposed to dictate policy?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Wait, so who's supposed to dictate policy?

Dictate, as is informing the policy choices, the elected officials obviously make policy. A simple proposition: policies that involve science should be based on (dictated by) actual science, not psuedo-science or political ideology masquerading as science, although obviously other factors (e.g., economic impact, etc.) should be considered.

This is more of an answer than your snarky response deserved.

 

[Gameface]

Dictate, as is informing the policy choices, the elected officials obviously make policy. A simple proposition: policies that involve science should be based on (dictated by) actual science, not psuedo-science or political ideology masquerading as science, although obviously other factors (e.g., economic impact, etc.) should be considered.

This is more of an answer than your snarky response deserved.

Umm, you made a clumsy statement that indicated you thought scientists should be in charge of policy and everyone else should stfu. You're welcome for giving you an opportunity to clarify.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Umm, you made a clumsy statement that indicated you thought scientists should be in charge of policy and everyone else should stfu. You're welcome for giving you an opportunity to clarify.

I don't believe that's what you actually thought I meant.

 

[Stoked]

I don't believe that's what you actually thought I meant.

BP is a pretty straightforward person. Lol.