Science is losing its environmental faith... Or has the money gone elsewhere?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paywall.
 
This thread's title is click-bait. In my view, it suggests geologists are rejecting current climate change is caused by human influences.
Read the pieces on the Science and Nature sites, in my opinion they don't support tnat notion.
'Or has the money gone elsewhere?' - pure innuendo.
 
Arjen said:
This thread's title is click-bait. In my view, it suggests geologists are rejecting current climate change is caused by human influences.
Read the pieces on the Science and Nature sites, in my opinion they don't support tnat notion.
'Or has the money gone elsewhere?' - pure innuendo.
Click to expand...
I respect your opinion. But although I have no proof of this, I think that the whole environmental movement is nothing more than a stray bullet from the cold war, sustained for many years on money that is becoming scarce because it goes to the hot war.
 
I must admit that as with many choices at the moment I am disinclined to follow any of the sides in the argument.
I am always sceptical (one of the few benefits of studying history). But scepticism is meant to be open to argument and ideas not a rigid adherence to a particular point of view.
On the other side, modelling and scientific theory do not constitute immutable fact. To question their findings is always appropriate as long as you are prepared to listen and try to understand.
Ideas change but do not go away.
 
uk 75 said:
I must admit that as with many choices at the moment I am disinclined to follow any of the sides in the argument.
I am always sceptical (one of the few benefits of studying history). But scepticism is meant to be open to argument and ideas not a rigid adherence to a particular point of view.
On the other side, modelling and scientific theory do not constitute immutable fact. To question their findings is always appropriate as long as you are prepared to listen and try to understand.
Ideas change but do not go away.
Click to expand...
I agree to change my mind in the face of compelling evidence, even to apologize for my opinions. The problem is that I can't help but be suspicious of the politicization of science through subtle means such as favoring the publication of certain ideas, discarding others, giving research grants to docile minds, and demonizing those who disagree. When science ceases to be impartial and aligns with faith, it ceases to be respectable. The reality is that since the accident on Three Mile Island, and Jane Fonda's film, the Western world has done nothing but unilaterally disarm. We stopped funding nuclear reactor research, suspended human spaceflight, and Germany has even dismantled its own nuclear industry while China is developing new types of highly efficient reactors.

I admit that this may all be a series of coincidences, but if there is a mind behind it, it must be an exceptionally intelligent guy. I would give him Lenin's Order. Now someone will say that this is a conspiracy theory.
 
Climate change and Anti-Nuclear are two different movements. The anti-nuclear one is driven more by emotion than by science, and is not in step with the climate change one, as can be seen by Germany going back to coal.
 
Desertfox said:
Climate change and Anti-Nuclear are two different movements. The anti-nuclear one is driven more by emotion than by science, and is not in step with the climate change one, as can be seen by Germany going back to coal.
Click to expand...
An eclipse is real, but the astronomer who predicted it can use his prestige to blame industrialists, doctors, Jews, or start a crusade against his professional adversaries. There are many natural factors that can alter the temperature of the planet and 99.99999% has occurred before the appearance of humans. Asreroids, volcanism, the passage of the sun through clouds of cosmic dust, an increase in sunspot activity, changes in orbital eccentricity, the proliferation of new life forms, the influence of comet debris, changes in the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field and many things that we still do not know... Or do you think that everything has already been discovered?
 
Justo Miranda said:
I respect your opinion. But although I have no proof of this, I think that the whole environmental movement is nothing more than a stray bullet from the cold war, sustained for many years on money that is becoming scarce because it goes to the hot war.
Click to expand...
Not surprising - as a German, having repeatedly visited Mediterranean countries, I always felt they tend to have a shall we say more cavalier attitude towards environmental issues than Western Central and Northern Europe.
 
Last edited:
uk 75 said:
I must admit that as with many choices at the moment I am disinclined to follow any of the sides in the argument.
I am always sceptical (one of the few benefits of studying history). But scepticism is meant to be open to argument and ideas not a rigid adherence to a particular point of view.
On the other side, modelling and scientific theory do not constitute immutable fact. To question their findings is always appropriate as long as you are prepared to listen and try to understand.
Ideas change but do not go away.
Click to expand...
Simply look at global temperature trends - they are a scientific fact. Personally speaking, studying one of the hard sciences or engineering rather that history might have served you better, but of course YMMV...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom