NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing - (1 Viewer)

Local time
Yesterday, 19:37
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
2,064
It's all moot because scientist like Greta, the squad and Bill Nye the scientist guy say we only 12 years to live. Obviously it will take a bit more arm twisting to secure ONE third of the worlds economy to even scratch the surface.
 
Local time
Yesterday, 19:37
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
2,064
I Got A Double Mastectomy After A Genetic Test. Then I Learned The Results Were Wrong.
Why is science continually making mistakes? Is this a new phenomenon or is this the new norm? My guess is science is always evolving, the issue is at what cost. I don't know, ask the women who lost her breasts.
 

Uncle Gizmo

Nifty Access Guy
Staff member
Local time
Today, 03:37
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
11,437
Why is science continually making mistakes?
That's an interesting observation and I read something recently which made my ears prick up! I have no idea of the truth of it, or though I suspect there's a grain of truth in it...

I understand that for some types of university degree you have to write a paper, a dissertation? And this is is peer reviewed. You can't advance in your subject until you've have one accepted? (Not Sure) There's a lot of pressure on the student to come up with this document. Some students have been known to falsify information, and/or make things up! I believe the estimate is that at up to 20% of these documents contain errors of varying degrees.

There has also been a tendency in some universities to fabricate a system based on a much more lenient set of criteria. You can come out of university with a degree, however the Foundation of it, the process you go through to get it, is much easier than the normal process. Whether it's still classed as a degree is probably debatable. Put it another way, if you've spent 8 years struggling to get a degree and someone else comes along and puts in 4 years and comes out with a degree, based on less strict and demanding criteria then you might be a bit pissed off!
 

Vassago

Administrator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 22:37
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,418
Vassago, something you mentioned recently in this thread has been an issue of mine for years. Galaxiom doesn't like me because I'm a skeptic on whether Climate Change is anthropogenic. However, I'm with you on reducing a lot of industrial emissions for a totally different reason.

The math on climate change has never impressed me. The biochemical pathways that lead from a given pollutant to a definite disease have always depressed me. I want to clean up the environment because of disease. IF it happens that it changes global warming, then GREAT! Two birds with one stone, can't fault that efficiency.

You can find literally hundreds of medical research papers that show every step in the biochemical process where by a certain pollutant causes emphysema or a particular pollutant triggers asthma or some airborne particulate leads to black lung disease... you get the message, I'm sure.

My position in one paragraph:
Does Earth's climate change? Yes - it does (and it has changed over millennia). Is that change or the rate of that change anthropogenic? I have doubts on grounds of methodology and robustness of the correlations. Do industrial pollutants cause diseases? Yes, without doubt. Should we get rid of pollutants? Yes, without doubt. Will pollution cleanup help the issues of climate change? Damned if I know. Let's try it and find out.
Thank you! That's always been a sticking point for me for all of the same reasons. I don't pretend to know enough about the science behind our involvement or not, but I do know we pollute the hell out of the planet and we have been killing enough wildlife and people with that pollution over the years. If we don't change something, it won't matter that the climate is changing before long. Maybe it won't be in our generation or the generation of our kids or grandkids, but there will come a time that the Earth says it's had enough. There is no doubt in my mind of that.
 

Vassago

Administrator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 22:37
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,418
Who died and made you God? Oh, wait... you and I agree on something else, too, regarding deities. So scratch that last question.
This got me. :D

I consider myself more in the middle. I don't care about the politics of things in regards to this, I just care about creating a safe environment for my family (when I finally have one) and to not have to worry about their future.
 

Vassago

Administrator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 22:37
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,418
Why is science continually making mistakes? Is this a new phenomenon or is this the new norm? My guess is science is always evolving, the issue is at what cost. I don't know, ask the women who lost her breasts.
Science is based on theories rather than faith. The "facts" we know today can change as new information becomes available. I think this is something that is often lost on the more conservative crowd. They tend to not change their views on things at the rate of others, even when presented with new information.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Yesterday, 22:37
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,948
Science is based on theories rather than faith. The "facts" we know today can change as new information becomes available. I think this is something that is often lost on the more conservative crowd. They tend to not change their views on things at the rate of others, even when presented with new information.
Your response is somewhat prejudiced and simplistic. Well, conservatives may simply want more facts before changing their ossified minds.

There is nothing wrong with taking one's time to respond to the implications of new facts. Conversely, one can state that immediately reacting to new facts can lead to inappropriate conclusions. For example, there is evidently a new study stating that eating red meat, is really not that bad for you. So should you rush out and immediately start gorging on red meat? I doubt it, because every couple of years there is new study that refutes the older studies. So who is correct?

What is "lost" (actually re-characterized) by the supposedly liberal left is that supposed scientific "facts" need to be interpreted within the political narrative advocated by the political left. I recently posted the following quote: "In Seattle, the city’s public schools have decided that everything, even mathematics, has to be seen through the lens of oppression and racism.". The left may pretend that global warming is based on scientific facts, but those supposed facts are organized and reported to advocate a political agenda. That is not unbiased scientific analysis.
 
Last edited:

Mike375

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 12:37
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,548
The left may pretend that global warming is based on scientific facts, but those supposed facts are organized and reported to advocate a political agenda. That is not unbiased scientific analysis.

That sure is the case in Australia.
 

Mike375

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 12:37
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,548
Science is based on theories rather than faith. The "facts" we know today can change as new information becomes available. I think this is something that is often lost on the more conservative crowd. They tend to not change their views on things at the rate of others, even when presented with new information.
We are less accepting of the media and doubly so in these modern times.

The left media tends to report what it wants to happen.

Climate change or more importantly the impact of climate change is similar to diet and health. The diet/health deal has been changing and changing backwards and forwards for years.

You mention pollution. That is a different deal to climate change. Climate change has its core basis a rise in average temperature. With pollution the frog is the canary in the coal mine and that has zero to do with temperature. The reptile probably has the most waterproof and weatherproof skin of any animal and the frog is just the opposite which is why with pollution the frog is the canary in the coal mine.
 
Local time
Yesterday, 19:37
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
2,064
I remember when eggs were scientifically considered to be bad for you. It caused high cholesterol, apparently the egg framers did not agree with that science. So now we have new science that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that eggs are now magically good for you. I don't know about you, but I think some Benjamin's changed hands. Science is for sale, regardless of what some people think is a political statement.

If they can manipulate eggs and sugar they sure as hell can manipulate climate.
 
Last edited:

Mike375

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 12:37
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,548
I remember when eggs were scientifically considered to be bad for you. It caused high cholesterol, apparently the egg framers did not agree with that science. So now we have new science that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that eggs are now magically good for you. I don't know about you but I think some Benjamin's changed hands. Science is for sale, regardless of what some people think is a political statement.
I am a smoker and Australia has by far the highest prices for all forms of tobacco in the world. It is also very demonised in Australia. A couple of years ago and really by way of accident not intent, I got involved with what was happening behind the scenes.

The American FDA became very involved in about 2007. The big drivers of anti smoking are big Pharmaceutical and age care, remembering aged care extends way beyond just nursing homes. In short, smokers are bad for business as our length of survival following a diagnosis or about an health problem is much much shorter.

A couple of months ago I phoned a gov't place in Australia called Quit Now. I said I am a smoker and 71 and is it true that a heart attack or stroke is more likely to be fatal for me. A resounding Yes and then "hang on a minute while I get you a list etc." So the read out a list of various health issues and survival following diagnosis for smoker and non smoker. So I said "what you are saying is if I wanted to avoid a lot of hospital stays over many years or avoid aged/health care I should increase my smoking". I can't describe the reaction on the other end of the phone.

We are also very bad for business for many medical specialities.

We also have a big push for "you are never to old to stop etc. and etc." One of the things that happens is if you get a life long smoker who is 65 and over and very much 70 plus who is in good shape for his age, I fit that category, they usually do poorly with health if they stop smoking. The problem is all the other things they change from when and what they eat/drink, sleep etc. and I guess if they have been life long smokers and in good shape for their age the other things they were doing were right for their bodies. They then become customers of the doctor and of course customers for drug companies.

If you knock down a coal fire power station how much money is earned (and with huge subsidies) to put together and erect all the windmills and solar panels and back up batteries to replace that coal fired power station.

The extinction alarmists in Australia would not have a clue. Virtually all the coal and gas that comes out of the ground in Australia is exported. If we went 100% renewable out exports would rise by a small amount so same amount of coal and gas burnt and it does not matter whether it is burnt in China, Japan or India as climate change is supposed to be Global.

Australia has gone from what was probably the cheapest electricity for business and home in the world to now one of the most expensive.
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 03:37
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
8,263
When we lived in Australia, we used to smoke "Winfield" fags. Advertised on telly by Paul Hogan and his mate Strop.
We also used "Mortein" fly spray advertised by The fabulous John Laws on telly.

Ahhh happy days.

Col
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 03:37
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
8,263
Oh and if you want to buy Sellotape in Australia, you have to ask for "Durex".

Weird.

Col
 

Mike375

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 12:37
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,548
When we lived in Australia, we used to smoke "Winfield" fags. Advertised on telly by Paul Hogan and his mate Strop.
We also used "Mortein" fly spray advertised by The fabulous John Laws on telly.

Ahhh happy days.

Col
You would be in trouble in Australia today if you used the word "fag"

A couple of states in Australia no longer have gender on the birth certificate unless the parents request it be listed.
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 03:37
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
8,263
You would be in trouble in Australia today if you used the word "fag".
Why?

Look, if you can call Sellotape "Durex" - in the UK, we can call cigarettes,"fags", there's no point in bowing to using americanisms, if someone is bent, then we say things like they are "woofters" or "bat for the other side", or they are "you know....wink wink"

Just to annoy even more, it's common to use the word "Chinky" in the UK, (with reference to a chinese meal)

Col
 

Vassago

Administrator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 22:37
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,418
You mention pollution. That is a different deal to climate change. Climate change has its core basis a rise in average temperature. With pollution the frog is the canary in the coal mine and that has zero to do with temperature. The reptile probably has the most waterproof and weatherproof skin of any animal and the frog is just the opposite which is why with pollution the frog is the canary in the coal mine.
According to a lot of those studies you don't agree with, human caused pollutants play a large part of human caused climate change. I mention pollution because, in general, I believe we can all do things to lower pollution for reasons that have nothing to do with climate change. As Doc said, if we care enough to cut back on pollution for the sake of only pollution, ignoring the climate change rhetoric, and it helps combat climate change as a side-effect, what's the harm?

At the rate we are going with pollution, between air, land, and water, I don't think we'll need to worry about climate change.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Yesterday, 22:37
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,948
We are less accepting of the media and doubly so in these modern times.
An add-on to this concept. What is the average person to think when the major proponents advocating for the fight against global warming blatantly ignore, in full view of the public, any lifestyle changes (sacrifices) to help reduce global warming.

When the proponents of global warming demand that you knuckle-under but they themselves do not, it nullifies any belief by the public that global warming is something to work for. If the proponents of global warming believe in what they say, they need to modify their lifestyles with real sacrifices.

If they don't why should the average person be motivated to modify their lifestyle? Do we want to have a two tier social structure where the average person is forced to comply, but the climate change leadership is exempt?

Record private jet flights into Davos as leaders arrive for climate talk


"David Attenborough might have urged world leaders at Davos to take urgent action on climate change, but it appears no one was listening. As he spoke, experts predicted up to 1,500 individual private jets will fly to and from airfields serving the Swiss ski resort this week." (emphasis added)
Then there are those ridiculous PR stunts that are environmentally wasteful in the name of saving the environment.

The problem with Greta Thunberg’s sea crossings

"Questions will also be raised as to why Thunberg needs to be at these conferences in person. The internet has done as much to break down our sense of borders as commercial flights did before it. Thunberg doesn’t need to attend conferences to disseminate her views to the world; she can simply upload a video to YouTube from her own living room. But for many climate change activists, it is the appeal of being seen to do good, and to mingle with others of a similar mindset that drives their attendance at these events. It hasn’t stopped many a Hollywood celebrity trying to preach to the masses about the evils of carbon and it probably won’t stop Greta. The rise of the carbon off-setting industry has given the wealthy exactly what they are after: a morally pure cause that can be realised through hard cash rather than lifestyle change. Thunberg has already had to dip her toe into these murky waters, when the crew of her yacht had to offset the carbon footprint of their flights through tree planting." (emphasis added)
 
Local time
Yesterday, 19:37
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
2,064

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom