Is the world being destroyed?

I didn't write any political narrative in this thread. Nor political proglaimations.

Did you listen or the interviews and can tell me what I missed? They were in German, so perhaps you understood it better than I did.

Greta Thunberg
@GretaThunberg
·
2h
According to the new IPCC report, the carbon budget that gives us the best odds of staying below 1,5°C runs out in less than 5 and a half years at our current emissions rate. Maybe someone should ask the people in power how they plan to “solve” that?

Science can have political ramifications and climate science is currently a good example. It doesn't mean that science is "political" or "ideological". But when decades of research leads to the conclusion that industrial pollution is altering the jet stream, destroying ocean ecology, or raising the sea level and people decide this isn't a good thing, then change is demanded. Preferably a change in patterns of consumption and a change in industrialism's pursuit of profit at the expense of everything else. As this change will require a voice of some power and authority behind it, it becomes a problem for governments, i.e. politics. For decades there was a debate between scientists representing industry (or genuinely mistaken) and scientists warning about the dangers to come. But these weren't historical ideological debates between "right and left" and it's simplistic to assign a political label to either side.

When scientists discover trends which pose a danger to life on earth they have a responsibility to make those in power aware of the situation and to use their expertise to inform the subsequent discussion and debate. Einstein did this when he informed FDR of the possibility that an atomic bomb might be developed by Germany; the Manhattan Project ensued. Scientists warned governments in the 80s about stratospheric ozone depleting chemicals; Washington D.C. listened and Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol.


This is fatuous. People who have followed the climate debate for thirty years don't have to remain neutral if what they have learned has informed their opinions and values. The scientists who alerted us to what is happening and what the likely consequences might be didn't do so in the hope that we'd remain "neutral".


Not if you base your values and beliefs on a firm scientific footing.


Then there's really no reason for you to participate, is there.

Time for a basic lesson in science (Walter, if I remember correctly you have an education in science, so here it is).

Science is objectively testable by experiment or observation If you don't accept this, then we are operating on different definitions of science. By testable I mean that any time a scientist makes a claim, there will be a set of experimental results that would prove their claim wrong.

If you can't set up an experiment to test your claim... than you claim isn't scientific.

So the claim here is that there is "no room to manoevre". My simple question to Walter (who says this is a scientific claim)-- What is the experiment to test this?

When I was teaching science, I would first ask students to identify units (which is a good way to start thinking about what something means). I don't what "room to maneuver" would be measured in. Would it be "days" or "meters squared"?

The claim here is that "room to maneuver = 0" which means we need an objective way to measure room to maneuver, or a calculation based on other measurements.

Of course, if we define "room to maneuver" in a way that it is always zero... then it is scientifically valid, but meaningless. Global warming is already happening... we could measure it as "number of years to act before global warming happens" that would be zero, but it doesn't tell us anything we don't already know.

We could define it as "years to act before a disaster"? But then we need to define "disaster" in a scientifically testable way since the effects of global climate change are generally viewed as a spectrum.

Maybe... number of years to act before we reach 4 degress? Or 6 degress?

If we define it this way, we can then look at climate models and get an answer. But you didn't do that.

You are using a made up standard that isn't defined and then claiming it is scientific.

It isn't science unless it is objectively testaable.

Of course, Walter's claim that there is "no room to manuever" is a political slogan. It is designed to make people who agree with him happy, and maybe get politicians to act. There is nothing wrong with that inherently (as long it is not wrongly pretending to be science).

However what does "no room to manuever" mean as a poltical slogan?

Does it mean that we should forget normal messy democrat processes to force through climate measures? Does it mean we need to give up on "industrialism"? Does it means we all need to shut down our computers and buy horses?

Walter's slogan is a fine bumper sticker, and it seems to get support from people in his ideological camp. I have actually seen the slogal "We are out of time!" which might be better although it is equally ill defined.

But it isn't scientific. Stop confusing political slogans with science. That is the point.

several univerities have developed models of extinction events caused through climate change. Mot of them are not element models but tatistical base like "trend surface" or variogramming of comparions to the events that caused extinctions in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic . Its not that it hant been done as an xercise

If you can show me one of the apolitical scientific organization making these forecasts of the extinction of the human race with any confidence, I will change my mind. The IPCC is an example of a reputable scientific organization.

models are usually disposed for publication. im aware of the onesthat were done at penn state climatology labs and stanford. whether you "believe" or not i not my obligation, I jut look up an see whats going on. I have no dog in this one, Im an old man and I dont hve time for enless pages of anything that oes NOT involve evolution , sorry

I disagree.

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, a "scientific organisation" might be something slightly different.

But, oralloy, do you deny all or some of the hundreds authors, contribitors and reviewers of hundreds of scientific institutes and organisations to be scientific?
That would reduce the scientific world dramatically.

Let's just say they have no credibility with me and I'm not listening to a single thing that they say.

At what point did the organization's reports become unbelievable to you? Was there a report that relied on bad data or a researcher who published a mistaken conclusion? What soured you on the IPCC?

It doesn't have to be. You seem to think that every statement based on scientific findings must itself be "scientific". This denotes a closed mind – apparently no one is allowed to speculate on the implications of a scientific study designed to alert people to an impending crisis unless the response is objectively testable by experiment or observation.



I've got a better idea:


Stop confusing science with political slogans.

max was hanging on to a belief that masking wasnt an effective deterrent in covid isolation. the rest of the world operated on a positive hypothesis till several studies confirmed that masking was effective.

So you are better than a couple of thousand of scientist because you ...

I really would like to read your publications to judge why those others have no credibility.

Just noting: the IPCC does not carry out original research, but that's done by the thousands of authors in more than 190 countries.

Yes, I wondered what one report he read that affected him so seriously that he'd choose to ignore everything else – maybe it was about pistol grips on firearms.

I don't know if this is supposed to be a personal attack. It is unrelated to the topic

I was skeptical. Then I changed my mind when I was presented with evidence. I see no shame in this.

Any idiot can win an argument by simply insisting he is right. I am one of the few people to ever lose an argument on able2know. I am proud of that and I respect that rare soul who can change their mind in the face of facts.

If you accept science, sometimes the facts aren't going to fit your political ideology. If they always do... you are doing science wrong.

https://billmoyers.com/segment/wendell-berry-on-his-hopes-for-humanity/?fbclid=IwAR1BOFK-L0m_T_06_FHuD5-5EM7_YfAlmVCzRb0CsL1hibfBEvjtL0kA6Oc