General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

The consensus of scientists is really a clever deviation of making people believe it is science fact...
when the truth is...
when you cannot resolve science, with Real science, you force a scientific consensus!!

That is why its called scientific consensus... and not scientific FACT!!

now isnt that just a clever!!!
The Devil is always in the details!!
No, you just don't know how science works, I'll give you a clue, there are no "facts" in science as in they are undisputable.
 
That mostly depends, on the ambient temperature.
And if you're in an inertial or non-inertial reference frame. Your velocity within that frame. Whether or not it was built relative to an accepted standard. Whether or not the tools used to measure it at the time pr production were properly callibrated.

Remember the Hubble Space telescope? Measurements were factually correct, but the device was not callibrated properly. Facts are fuzzy little distributions of truth. Error bars are a thing.

Recognizing that science is about modeling and refining, and not about "truth" will help the discussion.

No proton ever had a "+" stamped on it when it was born.

A polio vaccine will benefit most people, but not all people in all circumstances.

I can say that a tax on my peanutbutter sandwich will have and extremely low probability of reducing global temperature. That would be factually accurate.

It would be unscientific for me to claim that a carbon tax on my peanutbutter sandwich would have no probability of reducing global temperature.

I can say that the probability I will win the lottery this week is higher if I buy a ticket, than if I don't buy a ticket. That is factually accurate as well.
 
And if you're in an inertial or non-inertial reference frame. Your velocity within that frame. Whether or not it was built relative to an accepted standard. Whether or not the tools used to measure it at the time pr production were properly callibrated.

Remember the Hubble Space telescope? Measurements were factually correct, but the device was not callibrated properly. Facts are fuzzy little distributions of truth. Error bars are a thing.

Recognizing that science is about modeling and refining, and not about "truth" will help the discussion.

No proton ever had a "+" stamped on it when it was born.

A polio vaccine will benefit most people, but not all people in all circumstances.

I can say that a tax on my peanutbutter sandwich will have and extremely low probability of reducing global temperature. That would be factually accurate.

It would be unscientific for me to claim that a carbon tax on my peanutbutter sandwich would have no probability of reducing global temperature.

I can say that the probability I will win the lottery this week is higher if I buy a ticket, than if I don't buy a ticket. That is factually accurate as well.
Sure, hence, I said science doesn't provide "facts". That doesn't mean there aren't facts without dispute, for example, the current president of the USA is Donald Trump, that's a fact.
 
And if you're in an inertial or non-inertial reference frame. Your velocity within that frame. Whether or not it was built relative to an accepted standard. Whether or not the tools used to measure it at the time pr production were properly callibrated.

Remember the Hubble Space telescope? Measurements were factually correct, but the device was not callibrated properly. Facts are fuzzy little distributions of truth. Error bars are a thing.

Recognizing that science is about modeling and refining, and not about "truth" will help the discussion.

No proton ever had a "+" stamped on it when it was born.

A polio vaccine will benefit most people, but not all people in all circumstances.

I can say that a tax on my peanutbutter sandwich will have and extremely low probability of reducing global temperature. That would be factually accurate.

It would be unscientific for me to claim that a carbon tax on my peanutbutter sandwich would have no probability of reducing global temperature.

I can say that the probability I will win the lottery this week is higher if I buy a ticket, than if I don't buy a ticket. That is factually accurate as well.
I get the difference, between facts and truth. I have had to explain it, a number of times, here, over the years.

I could think of number of reasons, to tax peanut butter; but I don't like the stuff, so it would not affect me. I digress. Goverments don't need reasons to tax anything and will do so, if they can get it past a vote. Looks like 'change' in all its forms, is the vogue taxable thing/subject and any organisation, including governments, will milk it, for all they can get.
 
Sure, hence, I said science doesn't provide "facts". That doesn't mean there aren't facts without dispute, for example, the current president of the USA is Donald Trump, that's a fact.
Unless you believe, that he does not make Presidential material. He is unworthy of that office, he is a false president, someone who conned his way into office and should not be regarded as such. It is a fact, that he won the last U.S. presidential election.

Fact: The sun rises each and every morning.

Truth for thousands of years: The Son of the morning, the Light bearer and many other names, or the planet Venus, pulls the sun up over the horizon.

As far as the global weather is concerned. I would say that there cannot be that many 'facts' laid down by the experts. Only a consensus of opinions. As it is A:- Something that is seriously unpredictable, unstable and influenced by so many other, unpredictable and unstable things. &B:- Humans are still learning about the subject and have a lot more, too learn.

Many of the sciences have 'fixed' properties. The subject in hand, has very few.
 
Unless you believe, that he does not make Presidential material. He is unworthy of that office, he is a false president, someone who conned his way into office and should not be regarded as such. It is a fact, that he won the last U.S. presidential election.
And he still is the president, as incompetent as he may be and regardless of how he came to office.
 
I'm planning a cruise to see glacier calving next summer with my wife and youngest son.

Do you all think I'll have the best viewing at Hubbard Glacier in AK, or should I go somehere else?

I've backpacked in Glacier National park and I understand most of those snow/ice patches are gone now. Kind of like to take in the sights while they are still available.

My current plan is to fly into Seattle and then take the Cruise ship from there. Do you think I'll have better viewing if I charter a smaller boat near HG, or just take the cruise ship?

I feel that this would be a good education for my son. It won't be as extravagant as a carbon fiber sailing yacht across the atlantic, or a battery-powered Jaguar, but it will be something he can tell his children about. Thoughts?
You should probably just stay at home and look at it on the Internet, that way you will reduce your carbon footprint and save the planet \o/
 
Sure, hence, I said science doesn't provide "facts". That doesn't mean there aren't facts without dispute, for example, the current president of the USA is Donald Trump, that's a fact.
Really now, there are millions of democrats in the US that disagree with you, and insist he is not the legally elected president.
 
You should probably just stay at home and look at it on the Internet, that way you will reduce your carbon footprint and save the planet \o/
I thought the same way until I took a 25 foot boat to within 100 yards of an active lava flow. The burst of heat, the smell of sulfuric acid, the thud of the aa lava chunks exploding into black sand as they hit the water simply cannot be replicated through video. Glacial calving is on my bucket list. Gotta check it out.
 
I thought the same way until I took a 25 foot boat to within 100 yards of an active lava flow. The burst of heat, the smell of sulfuric acid, the thud of the aa lava chunks exploding into black sand as they hit the water simply cannot be replicated through video. Glacial calving is on my bucket list. Gotta check it out.
Seeking to experience the world first hand? How dare you!
 
They can dislike him as much as they wish, he's still the elected president.
Totally agree with you. I wish they did too. Facts are facts to people that agree that they they are facts. I think it's safer for everyone to live within probabilities so we can at least talk about things.

I watched a discussion at UCSD between two climate scientists that were emotionally attached to their personal perspectives on the number watts/m^2 incident on the surface of the earth at a particular latitude. It was clear that this was not a dispassionate discussion between academics. It was war.

I saw the same thing at a presentation at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara between Hawking, and a few prominent string theorists. There was a veneer of friendliness, but some real disagreement between these luminaries.

Anyone that tells you science on something is settled (like quantum mechanics or climate science) is not doing science.

Anyone that uses science to take away civil rights is the most terrifying kind of person I can imagine.
 
Top Bottom