Worldwide demonstrations for "science".

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

NASA? Not everything that comes out of the mouth of NASA is true. Sometimes they do screw up. Believe it or not. 

So, who cares if the Antarctic ice is growing, and the Arctic ice is melting. It is not going to effect my life or yours in the years that we have left on earth. Why do people living today care about where the ice is melting or not melting? The temperatures have pretty much not changed all that much in the last fifty years. So, why all the panic?

Besides, every year it will always snow in the winter months in one of those places anyway. It will melt in the Arctic, and grow in the Antarctic, and vice-versa. The world will never become snow less. But hey.  

So does that mean you now believe in human caused warming?

I'm all right Jack, screw everyone who comes along after me.

You really didn't read any of that NASA report did you. We had the coldest, snowiest winter in decades here. We are also seeing warm weather species that we never have before and pine beetles have devastated our interior forests over the past two decades because our winters are no longer cold enough to kill them off. No big deal you may say but this is only beginning.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada's own scientists are quietly suffering from massive shortfalls in funding...no wonder they have time to protest President Trump in another country.

 

Quote

Labs shutting down, research jobs lost

By early summer, nine out of every 10 health researchers who applied for research money from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) last fall will have received a rejection letter.  

Across Canada, labs are closing, graduate students are losing their research jobs and some senior scientists are facing the grim reality that they might have to abandon decades of inquiry, leaving important scientific questions unanswered because there's no way to pay for the research.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-science-march-cihr-naylor-report-funding-budget-1.4079581

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[Ash74]

Since it is the left that is organizing these marches for science but these are the same people that say there is more than two genders.

How does that work or does the left just ignore it?

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada reports on itself...failing to invest has led to a 15 year decline in science and research.

http://www.sciencereview.ca/eic/site/059.nsf/vwapj/ScienceReview_April2017.pdf/$file/ScienceReview_April2017.pdf

Protest that.....instead of Trump.

Edited April 25, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[cannuck]

Do we have climate change?  Duh, we've had it for several billion years.

Is there an anthropomorphic contribution?   Are there people living here?

I will stand aside and observe as to the magnitude of our contribution and the ability of any change in our behaviour to make any significant difference in outcome.   I won't last long enough to conclude the climatic observation (nor will my great grandchildren), but I WILL likely see the evolution of "scientific" thinking on the topic.

I regard the current business of climate change work as pop-science.  It is occupied by those rushing in to cash in on the $$$$ to fund their version of belief, so the numbers can be dramatically skewed.  Yes, most science has an agenda - and very few scientist have the level of discipline to be truly objective.  This fad reminds me so much of the decades long campaign by "scientists" to denigrate animal fat or the similar long standing scientific attack on dietary cholesterol.    Studies were done, papers were published and peer reviewed, textbooks were written, the science was taught.   It was pure BS.

Trump?  He is only here for a short while, so what he has to say may have a short term consequence, but in the long run, we will have to see how well the "science" involved in many of these controversial causes will hold up.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2017 by cannuck

[Michael Hardner]

34 minutes ago, cannuck said:

I regard the current business of climate change work as pop-science.  

What part of it do you find incredible ?

[cannuck]

For one: extrapolation of models from data that is questionable.  Methodology is only part of it.  The question is how does the agenda of the author affect what is presented vs. what is conveniently ignored?  It is not only a problem in science, it is a much larger problem in criminal investigations.   As I stated, the human condition is to be very weak on the discipline of objectivity and honesty, and scientists are pretty much as human as cops, teachers, politicians, etc.  

Two of the scientists in my family are very good at science, and far more than average in objectivity.   I could cite hundreds of examples where they point out the hidden agenda in some very high profile science as they have encountered in the professional travels throughout the world.   The two I mentioned above are typical.  You see, I remember scientists bragging that nuclear power would be too cheap to meter.

In my experience, many people doing science are completely tied up in their world, be it academia or institutional pursuit.  Their world seldom extends beyond a rather cloistered environment - and those tend to be things that make them slave to a slim slice of the range of ideologies with a highly filtered source in information on the world at large.

If I can be really blunt about it:  in the world of climate science, those who adhere to the "safe line" of high level of anthropomorphic contribution are rewarded with funding from many sources (all WITH an agenda), whereas those who question the popular trend (thus pop science) are NOT as likely to be rewarded with funding.   So who's opinion and agenda gets expressed in the media - and sadly in the science?

A truly objective scientist, IMHO, would start every conversation around anthropomorphic contribution with severe alarm over population and how to humanely correct the real problem.   Instead, we see massive amounts of effort to determine how to do more of what is CAUSING whatever that problem is - and to do so with reckless abandon as to economic sustainability.

I trust GOOD science to a very high degree, I just don't trust people.

Edited April 25, 2017 by cannuck

[bush_cheney2004]

Is Canada more anti-science, or just anti paying for it ?  

[Wilber]

15 hours ago, Ash74 said:

Since it is the left that is organizing these marches for science but these are the same people that say there is more than two genders.

How does that work or does the left just ignore it?

I don't think the universe gives a crap about the left/right politics of humans.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, cannuck said:

1) For one: extrapolation of models from data that is questionable.  Methodology is only part of it.  

2) The question is how does the agenda of the author affect what is presented vs. what is conveniently ignored?  It is not only a problem in science, it is a much larger problem in criminal investigations.   As I stated, the human condition is to be very weak on the discipline of objectivity and honesty, and scientists are pretty much as human as cops, teachers, politicians, etc.  

Two of the scientists in my family are very good at science, and far more than average in objectivity.   I could cite hundreds of examples where they point out the hidden agenda in some very high profile science as they have encountered in the professional travels throughout the world.   The two I mentioned above are typical.  You see, I remember scientists bragging that nuclear power would be too cheap to meter.

3) In my experience, many people doing science are completely tied up in their world, be it academia or institutional pursuit.  Their world seldom extends beyond a rather cloistered environment - and those tend to be things that make them slave to a slim slice of the range of ideologies with a highly filtered source in information on the world at large.

4) If I can be really blunt about it:  in the world of climate science, those who adhere to the "safe line" of high level of anthropomorphic contribution are rewarded with funding from many sources (all WITH an agenda), whereas those who question the popular trend (thus pop science) are NOT as likely to be rewarded with funding.   So who's opinion and agenda gets expressed in the media - and sadly in the science?

5) A truly objective scientist, IMHO, would start every conversation around anthropomorphic contribution with severe alarm over population and how to humanely correct the real problem.   Instead, we see massive amounts of effort to determine how to do more of what is CAUSING whatever that problem is - and to do so with reckless abandon as to economic sustainability.

 

1) Questionable how ?  I think the temperature rise predictions have been reported as pretty accurate.  

2) You are boiling the ocean here.  Examining human motivation on the whole may be worthwhile but the results themselves will prove out if there are people who are not being objective.  The reporting systems are open and available for criticism.  Yes personal bias is an issue, but examples of false predictions aren't enough for us to throw out the science as a whole.

3) This is called specialization.  Climate Science is necessarily specialized, but also they don't need to predict outside their area of expertise.  Economic discussions are outside of the realm of climate science, if that's what you are referring to.

4) If you could show the current conventional science to be incorrect, you would be rewarded with status as a visionary.  The data shows, though, that temperatures are climbing as CO2 climbs and nobody has put forward a viable reason other than the conventional theory.

5) Why would they bring population into it ?  Scientists are caused with finding reasons for our universe, not 'humanely correcting problems'  That's for policy makers.  You bring in economics too, which is off topic

So we have:

-Greenhouse effect can be shown in a lab

-CO2 increases the greenhouse effect

-CO2 produced by humans in increasing and the temperature graph correlates well

All of your complaints about human self-interest and offering solutions are absolutely valid however they have nothing to do with the crux of what climate change is saying.

[taxme]

On 4/24/2017 at 3:03 PM, Wilber said:

So does that mean you now believe in human caused warming?

I'm all right Jack, screw everyone who comes along after me.

You really didn't read any of that NASA report did you. We had the coldest, snowiest winter in decades here. We are also seeing warm weather species that we never have before and pine beetles have devastated our interior forests over the past two decades because our winters are no longer cold enough to kill them off. No big deal you may say but this is only beginning.

(1)I suppose when I drive my car I am warming up the area around me but that area pretty soon cools down. I am not in anyway really contributing all that much to this so-called global warming. If anyone is it is the people that live in China and India and Africa. There are billions of people living in those countries. They have to be contributing one hell of a lot of global warming into the air, and possibly being the culprits in the warming up of the planet. But all I ever hear from the global warming crowd is that we in Canada must cut back on our use of fossil fuels. We are small time players compared to those three countries mentioned. So you better go after them, and leave me out of your global warming fear mongering here in Canada.  

(2)That is just about everyone's attitude in this country, and pretty much in the rest of the world, that to them the rest of the world can go screw themselves. I believe that most Canadians don't care much about anything that is going on, and appear to be only interested in themselves, and their problems. And when they get themselves into some kind of trouble then they want everyone too come running to their rescue. Those people can go screw themselves. 

(3)No point in me reading it because I am not concerned about this thing called global warming. You just wrote that "we have had the coldest and snowiest winter in decades". Well, what is it? Are we warming up, or are we cooling down? Personally, I accept the fact that this has something to do with mother nature, and that she has caused many global cooling and global warming periods in the past. She likes to rearrange the furniture(weather)every now and then. Nothing stays the same and lasts forever. I just don't let the doom and gloomers get me in too a panic. Besides, by the time all the ice and snow melts in the Arctic, if that ever happens at all, the people alive today will be all dead and gone. And hat includes you and me, fella. 

[Wilber]

Your car being warm means nothing, it's what comes out of the tailpipe that matters. Per capita, Canadians and Americans emit more greenhouse gasses than anyone. China's coal consumption has declined the last three years in a row, despite the fact their economy is still growing at nearly 7% per year. A growth rate both Canada and the US would kill for. China is #1 in the world for it's number of wind farms and has been #1 in wind generated power since 2010.

Trump may have taken the leash of coal companies but I don't know who they are going to sell it to. All they will do is glut the market and drive the price down because the rest of the world wants to move on.

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Trump may have taken the leash of coal companies but I don't know who they are going to sell it to. All they will do is glut the market and drive the price down because the rest of the world wants to move on.

 

Which will, of course, be the fault of the liberal leftist media, Clinton and Clinton, Obama and Benghazi.

[bush_cheney2004]

So why is Canada anti-science.....anybody ?

Will there be protests against Trudeau ?

Edited April 26, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[Bob Macadoo]

22 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

So why is Canada anti-science.....anybody ?

Will there be protests against Trudeau ?

You don't get paid if no one replies to your topic distractions?

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Bob Macadoo said:

You don't get paid if no one replies to your topic distractions?

 

Apparently Canadian scientists don't get paid either.   

[Omni]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Apparently Canadian scientists don't get paid either.   

No they always got paid, just that now we got rid of the conservatives they are allowed to speak about their research. I imagine though if you work for the EPA you are looking around for something else to do.