What's new
By:

The 2018 UN Climate Report

lauriandres said:
One Brow, am i correct that according to the law in most of the countries - every person can be hired with the title "scientist"? I.e the scientist term/title is not regulated unlike CEO or doctor (at least in Estonia everybody, who has officialy graduated an university as a doctor for example orthopedist, gets an unique doctor's ID from the government and is put on a special database).
Am i scientist, if a company that belongs to my wife, hires me to research new accounting (she has an one-person accounting company) technologies?
IMHO, at least in my country there seems to be enough persons, who work at some university, claim to be scientist, however, most of the research seems to related to problems which are (loosely translated from estonian language - maybe there is better wording in english) - sucked out from the pen and are getting paid by the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the title of CEO is also unregulated. You are correct that the term "scientist" is not administered by a regulatory body, in the way "doctor of medicine" and "attorney" would be. You are correct that if we looked into this list of 500 "scientists" that jazz_rule discussed, most of them would not be working actively in climate research and therefore not have anything truly worthwhile to comment upon.
 
When the subject of Greta Thunberg came up on the impeachment thread, some argued that she was coached in the speech she delivered. According to this BBC profile, she spent the two weeks sailing across the Atlantic working on her UN speech, and those close to her insist she writes all her own speeches.

https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiNWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy9zY2llbmNlLWVudmlyb25tZW50LTQ5ODU1OTgw0gE5aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmJjLmNvbS9uZXdzL2FtcC9zY2llbmNlLWVudmlyb25tZW50LTQ5ODU1OTgw?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

And climate scientists are impressed with her effect.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...nberg-s-efforts-are-building-real-ncna1059321
 
Red said:
When the subject of Greta Thunberg came up on the impeachment thread, some argued that she was coached in the speech she delivered. According to this BBC profile, she spent the two weeks sailing across the Atlantic working on her UN speech, and those close to her insist she writes all her own speeches.

https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiNWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy9zY2llbmNlLWVudmlyb25tZW50LTQ5ODU1OTgw0gE5aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmJjLmNvbS9uZXdzL2FtcC9zY2llbmNlLWVudmlyb25tZW50LTQ5ODU1OTgw?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

And climate scientists are impressed with her effect.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...nberg-s-efforts-are-building-real-ncna1059321
Click to expand...
I don't doubt it. One of the criticisms of Climate Change awareness for years is that scientists by their nature have a hard time moving public opinion with facts and studies. We've needed communicators who can make appeals to the world on a level that actually gets people to care. She's done more than anyone on this account.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
lauriandres said:
One Brow, am i correct that according to the law in most of the countries - every person can be hired with the title "scientist"? I.e the scientist term/title is not regulated unlike CEO or doctor (at least in Estonia everybody, who has officialy graduated an university as a doctor for example orthopedist, gets an unique doctor's ID from the government and is put on a special database).
Am i scientist, if a company that belongs to my wife, hires me to research new accounting (she has an one-person accounting company) technologies?
IMHO, at least in my country there seems to be enough persons, who work at some university, claim to be scientist, however, most of the research seems to related to problems which are (loosely translated from estonian language - maybe there is better wording in english) - sucked out from the pen and are getting paid by the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

Pretty obvious thing here. "Science" has never been owned or regulated. The definition has never been "settled". The term has a root in language, and no human is out of the equation.

"Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]"
https://www.etymonline.com/word/science
 
Last edited:
One Brow said:
There are tens of thousands of papers published in scientific journals supporting teh reality of climate change. Why would there need to be some document for them to sign?
Click to expand...

So the contest is for willing participants, with a sorta solid wall of authoritarians who won't actually discuss stuff with the little band of disputants.

There are thousands of Priests of almost any traditional religion, some being ordained some not I suppose, but all holding fairly consistent views. And lots of books and publications to sit on.

The fundamental thing here is that it is anyone's right to think, to believe something or not. The idea of authoritarian dogmas just cries out for challenge. If you can't or won't discuss it, you are not credible, no matter how "settled" you are, nor how many sit in your choir.

The idea of a government determinining and standardizing beliefs is inherently abhorrent.
 
There are obvious deficiencies in published, peer-reviewed reports, and the willingness of political proponents of action, claiming support from the "Science", to push "solutions" that are basically political..... rather than practical..... that are ineffective in regard to the problem of the climate change.... should set off all kinds of warning bells.

Look, I see you are not a scientist. You are not inclined to the methods traditional to science. You are a political activist, like little Greta. It does not impress me, or change my thinking that political wonks are worried about climate. I am not.

I will do something about it, but not "worry".
 
So, in summary, we have no idea what all is changing, or why. CO2 is only one factor, and not an especially strong driver. Changes in solar output, or the earth's precession or wobble in orbit, are stronger drivers than a change of .01% in CO2. There are huge natural cycles involving carbon dioxide, some much stronger than human activity.

One thing I am seriously looking into is internal earth processes.... changes in heat generation. I would like to see a lot more data than we have. There have been a few studies and calculations made of the amount of heat emanating from beneath towards the surface. So far, it's figured that earth's contribution to the heat balance is maybe 10% of the Sun's. But it is important to the Ocean temp at depth. A 1C change in ocean temp, top to bottom, would be thousands of times more important than a 1C change in the atmosphere temp.

Scientists all assume it is not changing. But geologically we know that it does change, and massively. Most scientists think it is decreasing. But recent reports, published in leading peer-reviewed journals no less, by uncontroversial "scientists" have found that the old ideas are just wrong. It's clear that the fission sources of heat are only about half of the heat being generated, and that a second source is necessary to explain the heat. A source that is not decreasing.

Ocean data is showing more CO2 outgassing from the oceans than scientists have thought, too.

So it's possible, besides the human component, there is a more powerful source for climate change.

The practical thing to do is plan to adapt ourselves, not change our economics or politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top