Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[Gregs24]

I think everyone can agree we are completely crapping on this planet.

Getting stuck arguing about 3-5 degrees on a 300 year trend line seem counterproductive in stopping the destroying of our oceans, massive pollution of the water supply and chemical contamination of our land. That may just be the point though.

Agree

Climate change is but one challenge facing us. Pollution of many types are killing people every day now.

Sponsored

 

[HoosierDaddy]

But using that argument you would never do anything with long term goals. It could be equally countered by saying failing to make changes now will mean it is too late to do anything about it later.

Yes. We must not make the same mistake as with Y2K. I still can't believe we didn't rewrite everything to use 5 digit dates. Now we have to go thru the same crap again in 9999. Can't wait to say: told ya so!!!

 

[CEHollier]

Yes. We must not make the same mistake as with Y2K. I still can't believe we didn't rewrite everything to use 5 digit dates. Now we have to go thru the same crap again in 9999. Can't wait to say: told ya so!!!

Gonna party like it's 9999. LOL

 

[CEHollier]

The problem with the expensive rules are they don’t punish the offender IE the corporate behemoths. They lower the standard of living for the populations while preserving the profits of the corporations.

Corporate capture is now a very real threat to us in many ways. I read a variety of stories from the most liberal craziness to conservatives garbage. I love different views and challenging my beliefs. One thing all these stories have in common though is capture.

Check out this story. Look less at the source and more the overall message.

Even to those critics, however, the larger issue Weinstein’s case highlights should be clear. If platforms like YouTube are basing speech regulation policies on government guidelines, and government agencies demonstrably can be captured by industry, the potential exists for a new brand of capture — intellectual capture, where corporate money can theoretically buy not just regulatory relief but the broader preemption of public criticism. It’s vaccines today, and that issue is important enough, but what if in the future the questions involve the performance of an expensive weapons program, or a finance company contracted to administer bailout funds, or health risks posed by a private polluter?

Weinstein believes capture plays a role in his case at some level. “It’s the only thing that makes sense,” he says. He hopes the pressure from the public and from the media will push platforms like YouTube to reveal exactly how, and with whom, they settle upon their speech guidelines. “There’s something industrial strength about the censorship,” he says, adding. “There needs to be a public campaign to reject it.”

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/a-case-of-intellectual-capture-on

Corporate capture is about as anti-science as it get. Very pro profit though.

Bingo - It's the double standards that piss me off. I really hate hypocrites. Not for Me. But for The. As much as I can I avoid big business and support small businesses. Mom and pop businesses have more in common with most of us than multi national corporations.

 

[sk47]

But using that argument you would never do anything with long term goals. It could be equally countered by saying failing to make changes now will mean it is too late to do anything about it later.

The new 'expensive rules' as you describe them are balanced out by later benefits. If you want cheap all the time then you will just encourage the lowest common denominator. By your cheap stuff from China where labour costs are low and pollution worse, but you (or more likely your offspring) will pay for it later.

maybe you should have also written...

By the time any up side can be known or that the measures are proven to be effective it will be too late.

Hello; Nope. There was a character in the very old Popeye cartoons. I think his name was Wimpy. His often repeated line was something like - Can you give me a hamburger today for which I will gladly pay you on Tuesday?

The new expensive rules will kill off a mature and well functioning way of providing energy and transportation for a promise of sketchy future benefits. While at the very same time, in the same breath some might say, it is already too late to make a difference. That some may start to see a little bit of benefit in 50 years if the changes now are very drastic. That if the new rules are less than drastic then it will take decades beyond 50 years.

Another thing going on at the same time now thing is the rope across the swimming pool analogy. With one side of the rope being the do not pee in the pool area and the other side of the rope it is OK to pee in the pool side. Some how China is to be allowed to go on increasing pollution (CO2) for many years while my country is to be restricted and has already reduced emissions.

 

[Gregs24]

The new expensive rules will kill off a mature and well functioning way of providing energy and transportation for a promise of sketchy future benefits.

What the multi national, cartel based, polluting status quo

 

[Crowd Hunter]

Aren't we headed for another ice age?

 

[sk47]

What the multi national, cartel based, polluting status quo

Hello; Actually no, not for my country. We (USA) have been converting power plants to natural gas away from coal for some time. Our cars and trucks run much cleaner.
I personally have switched to LED lights for almost all my lights. I have not yet used the central air in my home. I was tempted last night as it was very hot and humid until after 11 PM.

For some other countries is is continuing to be the status quo. Well actually China will be increasing the pollution, CO2 and others, for years to come with only a vague idea they will do better at some point. You may believe they will be good in ten years after they are given time to keep on polluting. ( The swimming pool analogy again.)

 

[sk47]

Aren't we headed for another ice age?

Hello; That was the old scientific consensus back a few decades ago. I was around for that one myself. We aren't supposed to recall that sort of thing as they have a new consensus now.

 

[Crowd Hunter]

Hello; That was the old scientific consensus back a few decades ago. I was around for that one myself. We aren't supposed to recall that sort of thing as they have a new consensus now.

And the fact that green house gases continued to climb despite the fact that half of the world was locked down...

Carbon dioxide levels continue at record levels, despite COVID-19 lockdown | World Meteorological Organization (wmo.int)

" The lockdown has cut emissions of many pollutants and greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. But any impact on CO2 concentrations - the result of cumulative past and current emissions - is in fact no bigger than the normal year to year fluctuations in the carbon cycle and the high natural variability in carbon sinks like vegetation."

Translation - the lockdown had no impact whatsoever.

 

[CEHollier]

Aren't we headed for another ice age?

I remembered that TIME magazine issue in the mid 70's.

 

[Gregs24]

They quickly figured out global cooling wasn’t very profitable.

And it wasn't happening either!

 

[Gregs24]

And the fact that green house gases continued to climb despite the fact that half of the world was locked down...

Carbon dioxide levels continue at record levels, despite COVID-19 lockdown | World Meteorological Organization (wmo.int)

" The lockdown has cut emissions of many pollutants and greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. But any impact on CO2 concentrations - the result of cumulative past and current emissions - is in fact no bigger than the normal year to year fluctuations in the carbon cycle and the high natural variability in carbon sinks like vegetation."

Translation - the lockdown had no impact whatsoever.

Is that so surprising?

Lockdowns were piecemeal globally and some of the biggest polluters has had minimal COVID lockdown impact (China) or only recently (India). There were significant local benefits in terms of pollutants at the time of lockdown in cities, but rainforests continue to be cut down, and people locked down at home still need heat and food.

 

[Gregs24]

Hello; That was the old scientific consensus back a few decades ago. I was around for that one myself. We aren't supposed to recall that sort of thing as they have a new consensus now.

Nothing wrong with remembering. Just that it has been shown to not be occurring because man made impacts have grossly exceeded natural cycles.

 

[Gregs24]

Hello; Actually no, not for my country. We (USA) have been converting power plants to natural gas away from coal for some time. Our cars and trucks run much cleaner.
I personally have switched to LED lights for almost all my lights. I have not yet used the central air in my home. I was tempted last night as it was very hot and humid until after 11 PM.

For some other countries is is continuing to be the status quo. Well actually China will be increasing the pollution, CO2 and others, for years to come with only a vague idea they will do better at some point. You may believe they will be good in ten years after they are given time to keep on polluting. ( The swimming pool analogy again.)

I think you will find the US is far from leading the way on cleaning up it's infrastructure, but likewise not the worst either.

It is hard for you to complain about the costs of this cleaning up however when you are taking those steps yourself, so you must see the benefit in doing it.

Sponsored