Jump to content

Is science often hijacked by the politics of fear?


Recommended Posts

To answer your question in the title---I absolutely believe that to be true---the alarmists are always looking to scare

the population in believing what they want them to believe.  Let's face it, most scientists are liberal or left leaning in their thinking.

They always must have a cause to try and rally people behind them, and that includes fear tactics.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Ridgerunner said:

Looks like the people of Paris are not all that happy with the newly imposed planet saving carbon tax.:biggrin: Sure glad President Trump got us out of the Paris Climate Accord.

Carbon Tax is none other than a Cash Grab for Government Coffers.  Only Liberals could think of such a nefarious idea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 11/28/2018 at 7:50 PM, happyone said:

Let's face it, most scientists are liberal or left leaning in their thinking.

On what basis do you say this?

And if it is true, why do you think it is true?

Most actual scientists care about the truth. That is why they do science.

Actually for some politicians this is very difficult to believe as they believe everyone has an agenda, but then politics is based on lies so for them seeking truth is just against their nature.

BTW Thatcher was a scientist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2018 at 7:26 PM, Foamy T. Squirrel said:

Th author judging from his 13 "scientific truths" is more akin to the guy who claimed Venus hasn't been affected by having a Carbon Dioxide atmosphere. Of course I suspect he's not that stupid just political.

Venus is the REASON we started looking at the greenhouse effect. How did an atmosphere get so fucked. And it almost certainly had nothing to with Venusians but we wanted to know how it had got that hot so we started theorising and examining our own atmosphere. See marry that to chaos theory, or how small changes can lead to chaotic results, we worked out what was happening with the heat being generated on Earth. Basically what he calls scientific consensus are things people said were a possibility eventually (i.e. not on any short timescale like he expects from his claims that they are wrong - the sun will turn into a red giant but not by next week) and that is the same for climate change only the difference is the probability is much higher and the consequences are devastating plus we are already witnessing the effects. It was something I began to become aware of at university and if you think professors are left wing you never met my Astronomy professor who used to teach at Harvard.

BTW "Those 13 items listed above are not a joke, are not sarcasm, are not an exaggeration on my part."

Yes they are a fucking exaggeration. But you know how you argue scientifically? Well it's certainly no by "Scientists were wrong about A, therefore different scientists (you can argue not different if you are using consensus but it depends on the exact subject) are wrong about B" That really is nonsense. You do it by coming up with an alternative theories about the absorption and reflection of heat by molecules in the atmosphere and then proof them to the global scientific community.

Global catastrophe is not guaranteed. It would however be completely stupid not to reduce its chances. If you drive everywhere at twice the speed limit you may never kill anybody but you are many many more times likely to do so, which is why we have speed limits.

BTW the change of font size was caused by copying from the article not any shouting, although this Nolte is the kind of person who deserves to be shouted at.

Does this site of anything to do with that serial dangerous liar Bannon by any chance? When I read about him a couple of years ago I realised he was a far bigger danger than Trump, one degree of separation the odious megalomaniac Rupert Murdoch except at least the Antipodean's motives are purely about making himself as rich and powerful as possible and absolutely nothing to do with politics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The earth used to be a lot warmer, Florida was underwater, there wasn't no icebergs in the ocean, no humans on earth, but an asteroid changed earth, killed the dinosaurs & the earth turned into the Ice Age, the earth is slowly warming up again. And it's going to do it with or without man's help 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SPYING 1 said:

The earth used to be a lot warmer, Florida was underwater, there wasn't no icebergs in the ocean, no humans on earth, but an asteroid changed earth, killed the dinosaurs & the earth turned into the Ice Age, the earth is slowly warming up again. And it's going to do it with or without man's help 

So ... although really the effects of anything colliding with the Earth or long since over unless you count the Moon's existance.

And BTW it is doing it with man's help and that is the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edenhofer it would seem seeks political change - so I guess that is part of your point - and is clearly a politician rather than a scientist so you could say he has hijacked the science for his won purposes but that doesn't stop the BS of the rest of the article. A high percentage of the people who rule and have ruled the UK in the last century have studied PPE (usually at Oxford). Now Edenhofer has studied Philosophy and Economics and very few do that without a political agenda. Even at school our economics teacher was a Marxist!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, BBsq69 said:

So ... although really the effects of anything colliding with the Earth or long since over unless you count the Moon's existance.

And BTW it is doing it with man's help and that is the point.

I'm more worried about an asteroid or meteor destroying earth, than the earth going thur cycles of wet, dry, cold, & warm. Earth has recovered from asteroids, volcanoes, & hurricanes. So you're telling me that cars & pig farts are going to destroy earth ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SPYING 1 said:

I'm more worried about an asteroid or meteor destroying earth, than the earth going thur cycles of wet, dry, cold, & warm. Earth has recovered from asteroids, volcanoes, & hurricanes. So you're telling me that cars & pig farts are going to destroy earth ??

Not destroy, change living and whether conditions to make existence, more challenging (possibly impossible) and expensive.

Honestly the root cause of man's effect is not the consumption of meat and fossil fuels but the ridiculous increase in the population of Earth but nobody will deal with that for religious reasons. China and India have tried, the former fairly successfully, the latter somewhat less so and Africa and the rest of the subcontinent is out of control. In Nigeria Christian tribes and Muslim tribes are trying to outbreed each other. Yes their carbon footprint is still relatively small compared with industrialised nations but it increasing fast. China are going around the world building coal fired power stations which really have a great effect on the environment.

Without human involvement the atmosphere could go wrong - Venus, again - but we are the first generations to understand the contribution we are making and while there may be underlying cycles what we don't need to do is help them on the way which is precisely what we are doing at the moment and we know we are doing it. If worst case scenarios happen within the current models and we did nothing to prevent it, it is our fault.

Yes it is sad that politicians from both sides use this politically. There is a political element which is to what extent are richer countries going to compensate poorer countries for arresting their development but it does not necessarily mean the world economy has to suffer as a whole which in turn is better for rich countries like ours. The right do use climate change denial to further the interests of the fossil fuel industry but vegetarians have equally used climate change acceptance (not claiming equivalence here because of the science) to try to get people to stop eating meat. I imagine for the first group it is to do with their bank balance and political exploitation of the masses instead of finding alternation jobs and for the latter it is due to their almost religious belief. 

On the left it has been seized on by some who want to change the world. There are anti-Americans out there. i am not denying it and people are right to show them up for what they are just like people are right to show climate deniers up for what they are. The article in question was a typical smoke and mirrors, which actually is very typical of how Putin dealt with Salisbury against, actual science and evidence. There is no real scientific argument against climate change just a political one just like with evolution there is only a religious one. When people pretend otherwise it is out of a motive to deceive.  People saying if we do not take measures we would personally be better off is honest, saying there is alternative science is not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...