Jump to content

Critical Atlantic Ocean current system is showing early signs of collapse, prompting warning from scientists

Rate this topic


foxfai

Recommended Posts

57 mins ago, buddha162 said:

 

Not sure what you mean by "actual science" - someone has to fund research, and if the results stand up to vigorous peer review (and it must be vigorous) then in what sense is it not actual science? 

Joseph Mengla figured he was doing actual science also. I also believe that who is paying can change the outcome.

Capt, Frank Mundus. The man, the myth, the legand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 mins ago, buddha162 said:

 

Not sure what you mean by "actual science" - someone has to fund research, and if the results stand up to vigorous peer review (and it must be vigorous) then in what sense is it not actual science? 

Who's paying the peer reviewers? Anything that stands up to rigorous independent, unpaid peer review I would consider 'actual science'...way too much of what gets headlines in the news is not actual science, but paid for scientific opinions sensationalized to get an emotional response from the people they are targeting with the "news". 

Show someone how to catch striped bass and they'll be ready to fish anywhere.
Show someone where to go striped bass fishing and you'll have a desperate report chaser with loose lips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 mins ago, TimS said:

Who's paying the peer reviewers? Anything that stands up to rigorous independent, unpaid peer review I would consider 'actual science'...way too much of what gets headlines in the news is not actual science, but paid for scientific opinions sensationalized to get an emotional response from the people they are targeting with the "news". 

 

Vast majority of peer reviews are not paid - it's just part of their job as academics and experts in their field. Presumably they will one day need peer reviewers to publish their own research and hence it's reciprocal altruism to offer your services to the scientific process. Not a perfect system and lots of chatter about reform but introduce payments and the obvious roadblock is the kind of conflicts you mentioned. 

 

But let's hear some examples of "paid for" science that you and others in this thread seem to think is common. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are research funded by private interest looking to muddy the water on pending regulations etc. 

Edited by buddha162
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 mins ago, hunter123 said:

Joseph Mengla figured he was doing actual science also. I also believe that who is paying can change the outcome.

 

If you're referring to Josef Mengele - fun fact...we "liberated" his research notes and likewise combed through the notes of the even more heinous Unit 731 of the Japanese Imperial Army. 

 

The experiments in question were a pure embodiment of human evil - nonetheless the results contributed to our scientific knowledge of chemical interference, human physiology and biology. There were countless experiments from the past that would never pass an ethics review today - doesn't mean they weren't "real science."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 min ago, buddha162 said:

 

If you're referring to Josef Mengele - fun fact...we "liberated" his research notes and likewise combed through the notes of the even more heinous Unit 731 of the Japanese Imperial Army. 

 

The experiments in question were a pure embodiment of human evil - nonetheless the results contributed to our scientific knowledge of chemical interference, human physiology and biology. There were countless experiments from the past that would never pass an ethics review today - doesn't mean they weren't "real science."

 I don't count killing people for the sake of some Frankinstien science real. Maybe you do. But your intitled to your opinion.  Tight lines.

Capt, Frank Mundus. The man, the myth, the legand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OnlyDinks said:

Fun fact. The reason we have a really strong understanding of hypothermia is because of Joseph Mengele’s experiments. 

That one is true, There were many more that worked out . But there were more that failed.

Capt, Frank Mundus. The man, the myth, the legand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 mins ago, buddha162 said:

But let's hear some examples of "paid for" science that you and others in this thread seem to think is common. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are research funded by private interest looking to muddy the water on pending regulations etc. 

They would be, at least some of them, off topic to this discussion. If you need more proof than how everything funded by green energy says green energy is going to save the world (from an arguably natural cyclical changing climate) - and everything funded by big oil say green energy is nonsense, unnecessary and in some cases more harmful than burning fossil fuels I'm afraid no amount of examples is going to help you understand my point :) When people talk about EV's saving the planet, they are full of ****. Few things are as bad for the environment as the gigantic, disposable batteries used in EVs. And windmills are one of the biggest farces every forced on tax payers. We can go on with the solar joke as well, but it would be redundant. Never mind the energy grid already being overwhelmed where they are legislating electric vehicles, like areas in California where you aren't allowed to own certain types of personal computers because they use to much electricity...and where they have rolling blackouts every time the temperature breaks 80. There aren't any good green energy options, they all cause their own type of devastation to the planet....some are much worse than burning fossil fuels, but it makes people feel like they are "helping" :bucktooth: 

 

Science tells us wind mills can save the world - and science tells us wind mills are useless and damaging to the environment - science tells us EV's will save the world...and science tells us they are, at best, a wash for burning fossil fuels - they both can't be true, right? Yet they are both "science"...both peer reviewed. How's that possible? "Actual science" is not as clear cut as it used to be....and that's tragic and sad. 

Show someone how to catch striped bass and they'll be ready to fish anywhere.
Show someone where to go striped bass fishing and you'll have a desperate report chaser with loose lips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 mins ago, TimS said:

They would be, at least some of them, off topic to this discussion. If you need more proof than how everything funded by green energy says green energy is going to save the world (from an arguably natural cyclical changing climate) - and everything funded by big oil say green energy is nonsense, unnecessary and in some cases more harmful than burning fossil fuels I'm afraid no amount of examples is going to help you understand my point :) When people talk about EV's saving the planet, they are full of ****. Few things are as bad for the environment as the gigantic, disposable batteries used in EVs. And windmills are one of the biggest farces every forced on tax payers. We can go on with the solar joke as well, but it would be redundant. Never mind the energy grid already being overwhelmed where they are legislating electric vehicles, like areas in California where you aren't allowed to own certain types of personal computers because they use to much electricity...and where they have rolling blackouts every time the temperature breaks 80. There aren't any good green energy options, they all cause their own type of devastation to the planet....some are much worse than burning fossil fuels, but it makes people feel like they are "helping" :bucktooth: 

 

Science tells us wind mills can save the world - and science tells us wind mills are useless and damaging to the environment - science tells us EV's will save the world...and science tells us they are, at best, a wash for burning fossil fuels - they both can't be true, right? Yet they are both "science"...both peer reviewed. How's that possible? "Actual science" is not as clear cut as it used to be....and that's tragic and sad. 

While I somewhat understand having skepticism, as to the initial argument in this thread, even oil companies own studies have confirmed that our carbon emissions have had a tangible impact on our warming temperatures. 

 

 https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148376084/exxon-climate-predictions-were-accurate-decades-ago-still-it-sowed-doubt#:~:text=Over the last few years,warming that has actually happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 mins ago, WhitePerch said:

even oil companies own studies have confirmed that our carbon emissions have had a tangible impact on our warming temperatures. 

There is a dozen trillion tax dollars difference between 'tangible impact' and 'we can stop the naturally changing climate cycle by collecting more taxes and mandating feel good policies that won't change the climate' :read:

 

Show someone how to catch striped bass and they'll be ready to fish anywhere.
Show someone where to go striped bass fishing and you'll have a desperate report chaser with loose lips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 mins ago, TimS said:

They would be, at least some of them, off topic to this discussion. If you need more proof than how everything funded by green energy says green energy is going to save the world (from an arguably natural cyclical changing climate) - and everything funded by big oil say green energy is nonsense, unnecessary and in some cases more harmful than burning fossil fuels I'm afraid no amount of examples is going to help you understand my point :) When people talk about EV's saving the planet, they are full of ****. Few things are as bad for the environment as the gigantic, disposable batteries used in EVs. And windmills are one of the biggest farces every forced on tax payers. We can go on with the solar joke as well, but it would be redundant. Never mind the energy grid already being overwhelmed where they are legislating electric vehicles, like areas in California where you aren't allowed to own certain types of personal computers because they use to much electricity...and where they have rolling blackouts every time the temperature breaks 80. There aren't any good green energy options, they all cause their own type of devastation to the planet....some are much worse than burning fossil fuels, but it makes people feel like they are "helping" :bucktooth: 

 

Science tells us wind mills can save the world - and science tells us wind mills are useless and damaging to the environment - science tells us EV's will save the world...and science tells us they are, at best, a wash for burning fossil fuels - they both can't be true, right? Yet they are both "science"...both peer reviewed. How's that possible? "Actual science" is not as clear cut as it used to be....and that's tragic and sad. 

 

There's a lot to unpack but I assure you I understand your point, as simplistic as it was. Policy decisions don't always follow the best data, as the ASMFC debacle has clearly illustrated. Fossil fuels, wind, solar, battery tech, along with nuclear are part of the package to tide us over until breakthroughs in fusion etc - or we might never get there and it will just be incremental improvements in each sector for the foreseeable future. The decision by nearly all countries to abandon nuclear energy is a mistake, but again - that's politics driving policy, not science. 

 

Do recall that one of the earliest and most authoritative studies on human induced climate change was born in the bowels of ExxonMobile Corporation. One of the earliest adapters to recognize and internalize climate change policies was the Pentagon. Hardly entities that can be accused of harboring lefty green party sentiments. Yet they operate in the real world, and have a need to map out reality and project into the future. 

 

We can argue about the current state of science and institutions and the value of "expert" knowledge - but my question remains...if not science, what? Are we to gain knowledge by reading the entrails of animals or patterns in thrown sticks? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 mins ago, buddha162 said:

The decision by nearly all countries to abandon nuclear energy is a mistake, but again - that's politics driving policy, not science. 

I agree 100%...nuclear power is the right green energy answer until fusion gets figured out. It's not windmills and solar panels and legislating bans on combustion engines for an electrical grid that is already overwhelmed. Until China and India stop building coal powered plants, anything we do in the US is pointless...and certainly not worth trillions of wasted tax dollars and destroying the economy so people can pretend they are helping. 

Show someone how to catch striped bass and they'll be ready to fish anywhere.
Show someone where to go striped bass fishing and you'll have a desperate report chaser with loose lips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/9/2024 at 10:24 PM, DAQ said:

How much will this cost the tax payers?

 

I like Ben's idea and believe human sacrifice might be the answer we're all looking for!

 

Keep taking corrupt senators and congressmen; hell they don't even have to be corrupt. Just grab the useless ones and toss them into a volcano somewhere...

 

 

Philippines GIFChildren Of The Corn Sacrifice GIF by Shudder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hunter123 said:

Joseph Mengla figured he was doing actual science also. I also believe that who is paying can change the outcome.

Yeah he really doesn’t understand much how science works. It’s bull**** to him if he doesn’t agree with it based on his expert knowledge or “common sense”. Above he equated climate scientists with people who believe in the Mayan calendar. He’s not even close to being serious. 

(*member formerly known as 'Robert Yacoub')

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 mins ago, Lou T said:

Keep taking corrupt senators and congressmen; hell they don't even have to be corrupt. Just grab the useless ones and toss them into a volcano somewhere...

 

There would be many hundreds of immediate vacancies in Congress....but I'm on board...it has at least as much chance to "help" change the climate as making internal combustion engines illegal :th: 

Show someone how to catch striped bass and they'll be ready to fish anywhere.
Show someone where to go striped bass fishing and you'll have a desperate report chaser with loose lips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...