• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
little grey rabbit said:
It doesnt matter which direction the response is, so long as it is extreme, unheard of, catastrophic and most importantly of all.....
....we are all doomed
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you but if plankton is fading out that fast we will indeed be pretty doomed
 
MG1962 said:
I hate to break it to you but if plankton is fading out that fast we will indeed be pretty doomed
Click to expand...

If plankton was fading out as dramatically and for such a long period as this study claims we would
a. be all doomed
b. picked up on the decline yonks ago.
 
little grey rabbit said:
If plankton was fading out as dramatically and for such a long period as this study claims we would
a. be all doomed
b. picked up on the decline yonks ago.
Click to expand...

So you have not noticed the world wide decline of fish stocks? The Atlantic Cod, is effectively an endangered spieces now
 
Why is the word 'science' in quotes in your title? How is this not science? Observation, hypothesize, experiment.
 
So, LGR, what do you ... recommend?
Click to expand...
to be honest, I really couldnt care.

Humans have believed bizarre, insane and mysteriously strange things throughout their history that CO2 driven global warming, by comparison, is relatively harmless. Perhaps it should be encouraged as useful sink for the protest energies of the idealistic young? Far better having the young people chanting "hey hey, ho, ho, fossil fuels have got to go" than demanding dismantling of the industrial-security complex.

In the long term I would like to see a hydrogen economy, but that awaits technological solutions first. When the technology is available (and I don't mean proliferating windmills and the sad joke that is solar cells) we will be able to move from fossil fuels very quickly if we have the will.

In the long run I would like us to stop using fossil fuels, but I am not going to pretend to believe absolute nonsense in order to bring that about.
 
If the findings are confirmed by further studies
Click to expand...
they cannot prove that warmer oceans caused the decline.
Click to expand...
some scientists have warned that the Dalhousie University study may not present a realistic picture of the true state of marine plantlife given that phytoplankton is subject to wide, natural fluctuations.
Click to expand...
Yeah here is an alarming, unreasonable, typical fear-mongering article.
Speaking of which, ain't phytoplankton the source of a good chunk of the oxygen WE NEED TO LIVE?
 
NobbyNobbs said:
Why is the word 'science' in quotes in your title? How is this not science? Observation, hypothesize, experiment.
Click to expand...

Good catch. I am a follower of Bruno Latour which sees science as social construct rather than a value-neutral construction of objective truth and falsity.

This study then is both Science (without quotes) as an authentic product of a knowledge-power continuum holding a hegemonic position in the developed world as well as absolutely bollocks in terms of a representation of physical reality.
 
Olowkow said:
Ok, it sounded like you care very much about the issue, but that you just don't know what to do. I misunderstood.
Click to expand...

You certainly did. I think the science is best characterized by the statement "For every complex problem there is a simple explanation and its wrong".

I am far more interested in holocaust history than global warming. I fully expect to die in a world that still believes in fantastical homicidal gas chambers even though I am certain it is absolute bollocks. So the fact that we will spend the next 20 years getting ourselves in a lather about a purely fictitious environmental crisis, I find neither surprising nor particularly concerning.

I simply want to maintain my right to roundly and catagorically declare it is all utter nonsense.

What is your engineering background?
Click to expand...

None
 
little grey rabbit said:
Good catch. I am a follower of Bruno Latour which sees science as social construct rather than a value-neutral construction of objective truth and falsity.
Click to expand...
Seems like "followers" like you are keeping Bruno Latour awake at night.
http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/issues/v30/30n2.Latour.html
Why does it burn my tongue to say that global warming is a fact whether you like it or not? Why can't I simply say that the argument is closed for good?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You can declare it's bollocks all you like. Science works. Your computer is a fine example of this. Hell the fact you exist is a testament to that fact. There is little likelyhood that without the industrial and scientific revolutions that you would have survived your first year of life.

Tell you what, when you start understanding what science is rather than declaring what you think it is (which is wrong) get back to us. Until that point, I would suggest that the goat herd is that way hope you get a good return at the local market for them.
 
Sunsneezer said:
Seems like "followers" like you are keeping Bruno Latour awake at night.
http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/issues/v30/30n2.Latour.html
Click to expand...

I saw that too.
I am influenced by the Bruno Latour when he formulates critiques of science as a social construct. I am unabashedly not interested in his views of climate change or 911. I assume his views on these are genuine, however if he wanted to maintain a position of public influence he would have to pretend to believe the orthodox narrative even if he didn't

Latour is also an authentic product of CRITICALLAND
 
nvidiot said:
You can declare it's bollocks all you like. Science works. Your computer is a fine example of this. Hell the fact you exist is a testament to that fact. There is little likelyhood that without the industrial and scientific revolutions that you would have survived your first year of life.

Tell you what, when you start understanding what science is rather than declaring what you think it is (which is wrong) get back to us. Until that point, I would suggest that the goat herd is that way hope you get a good return at the local market for them.
Click to expand...

Some science works and some science doesn't.

But the Power-Knowledge continuum wants to stamp everything with it's SCIENCE stamp and say it is indisputable.

However physical reality and what society imprints with its SCIENCE stamp are overlapping but not totally identical categories.
 
little grey rabbit said:
I saw that too.
I am influenced by the Bruno Latour when he formulates critiques of science as a social construct. I am unabashedly not interested in his views of climate change or 911. I assume his views on these are genuine, however if he wanted to maintain a position of public influence he would have to pretend to believe the orthodox narrative even if he didn't

Latour is also an authentic product of CRITICALLAND
Click to expand...
It's not as much about his views of climate change or conspiracy theories, than his views about climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists themselves. He feels responsible for giving weapons to these movements, of which you are the product. Aren't conspiracy theories social constructs as well? Isn't that kind of selective science dismissal a social construct?
 
Last edited:
WTF does that even mean?

If you disagree with a scientific discipline it's up to you to point out the errors. Just disregarding it because it says something you don't like doesn't sound like a valid critique.
 
nvidiot said:
WTF does that even mean?

If you disagree with a scientific discipline it's up to you to point out the errors. Just disregarding it because it says something you don't like doesn't sound like a valid critique.
Click to expand...

Whether or not I provide a valid critique and whether or not a theory adequately represents physical reality are two different questions. Linking catastrophic environmental events with human "sinful" behaviour is such an old belief system that I presume it is in some way hardwired into our psyches - possibly it provided us with an evolutionary advantage.

As it happens i have provided a valid critique here, found alarmists simply dodged questions or provided specious responses. I am not really interested in traveling around in circles on the same questions.
 
Sunsneezer said:
It's not as much about his views of climate change or conspiracy theories, than his views about climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists themselves. He feels responsible for giving weapons to these movements, of which you are the product. Aren't conspiracy theories social constructs as well? Isn't that kind of selective science dismissal a social construct?
Click to expand...

Possibly, but where I differ from you is I do believe in an actual physical reality that can be described - at least approximately - by use of the scientific paradigms. I also believe that such scientific paradigms can be distorted by Power-Knowledge continuums.

Dark Matter may be able to bend light, but the existence of dark matter does not mean light does not exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom