LoneShaman
Member
LoneShaman, I can believe that global elites might hijack a movement, but that they could concoct the science as a hoax in itself - without the scientists themselves becoming aware of the hoax - is just not plausible. Sorry, dude, but your theory doesn't add up. There is something wrong going on with our climate, and we are the cause of it. Are miscreants going to take advantage of that? Probably. But that doesn't invalidate it.
And as for presenting a video by Andrew Bolt - good Lord, the man's political bias is well-known to all of us Australians, and you say that you, too, are Australian. Aren't you ashamed to associate yourself with such bias?
In any case, I only watched a little of the video because I don't want to give my time to partisans on the other side of the fence, but he seemed to be complaining about a paper that wasn't scientific (peer-reviewed, etc)? So, find one that is. It's not difficult!
Laird, it seems to me that you try to portray scientific community is something separate from the rest of society, largely immune to the faults, biases and conflicts that are rampant in a society is a whole. But this is not the case. Academic elites are the integral part of the social elites in general, science leadership and stucture is interconnected with state and corporate leadership and structure by a large network of relations, both formal and informal - and the corruption that permeates the high echelons of government and commerce taints them as well.
And scientists are also not fundamentally different from any other human beings, having to deal with material incentives and interests, ideological dedications and prejudices, personal and group sympathies and antipathies etc. as anyone else.
Thanks for finding that, because obviously it is highly relevant to this whole discussion about CAGW. Vortex, I wonder if you would like to paste the interview in here directly, so that more people notice it and read it. I don't want to paste things from Psience Quest unless you lot are happy with that.A long time ago, Henry Bauer and me has made a dialogue about this very topic on Psience Quest...
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-interview-with-dr-henry-bauer-part-2
There comes a point in an argument when you realise you're repeating yourself; when you've entered into an info-exchange 'link-war' -"I raise you a 2018 report on snowfall"; when your 'opponent' is reduced to exaggeration and/or ridicule, has made no real concession to your view and in fact re-arranges what has been said to validate their 'proof' - a small voice inside will advise, bail, it is futile.That is what you are supporting, it has nothing to do with saving the planet.
Alice, please read the link that Vortex has supplied. I think it makes more sense to discuss CC from this slightly wider context.There comes a point in an argument when you realise you're repeating yourself; when you've entered into an info-exchange 'link-war' -"I raise you a 2018 report on snowfall"; when your 'opponent' is reduced to exaggeration and/or ridicule, has made no real concession to your view and in fact re-arranges what has been said to validate their 'proof' - a small voice inside will advise, bail, it is futile.
Thanks for finding that, because obviously it is highly relevant to this whole discussion about CAGW. Vortex, I wonder if you would like to paste the interview in here directly, so that more people notice it and read it. I don't want to paste things from Psience Quest unless you lot are happy with that.
It is worth realising that Henry Bauer recognises a huge problem with modern science - which he defines as science done since the middle of last century, which seems approximately correct. Maybe it would help to calm this discussion by actually debating what he has to say, and then perhaps returning to 'climate change'.
David
I did (most of it), I don't 'like' something unless I have read/listened to a link. It is long, but very interesting, and I think supports my comment that much 'public' discussion becomes futile when we are simply 'defending' a (necessarily limited) stance for fear of finding ourselves, what -'wrong vs right'? It can never be that simple.Alice, please read the link that Vortex has supplied. I think it makes more sense to discuss CC from this slightly wider context.
David
Well yes, the advice was meant for everyone participating in this thread - Lone Shaman included, if he hasn't read it, or maybe Henry Bauer's book already.I did (most of it), I don't 'like' something unless I have read/listened to a link. It is long, but very interesting, and I think supports my comment that much 'public' discussion becomes futile when we are simply 'defending' a (necessarily limited) stance for fear of finding ourselves, what -'wrong vs right'? It can never be that simple.
[edit: I think you might advise LoneShaman to do the same]
I will have to ponder, and get on with some work, but look forward to reading everyone's response without comment for a while :)Well yes, the advice was meant for everyone participating in this thread - Lone Shaman included, if he hasn't read it, or maybe Henry Bauer's book already.
Since you read it, how do you think it relates to a discussion of CC?
David
If Laird and Ninshub (and Alex) - as well as Bauer himself - would agree with my full re-posting it here, I would be glad to do so.
Laird, Alex, you are here - what do you say?
Laird, will you ask Ninshub or I should contact him via Psience Quest private message?
Honestly, I'm not thrilled about the idea. We have precious few original interviews on PQ - I'd prefer that we retained that content exclusively and didn't copy it around. I also see no meaningful need to reproduce it here. It's not like it's hard to access the content as it is - it's fully visible to the general public via a simple link. What's so hard about moving one's hand a few centimetres and clicking a button?
That said, the content belongs to you and Henry Bauer, and I don't see that I have any right to restrict what you do with it, so if you really want to reproduce it here, I won't try to stop you.
Perhaps it's best you contact him through PQ PM.
Well yes, the advice was meant for everyone participating in this thread - Lone Shaman included, if he hasn't read it, or maybe Henry Bauer's book already.
Since you read it, how do you think it relates to a discussion of CC?
David
"They have no plan for replacing the energy deficit they intend of creating. This will further divide the rich and poor. It will create a modern version of feudalism by replacing the economic system of money with one of energy."- LoneShaman
For starters, let’s flash back a few decades before there was any of that new science, and review a little history dating back to the 1970s and early 1980s when Third World countries, by force of numbers, and European socialist green parties, through powers of aggressiveness, seized control of the United Nations. They soon began calling for a New International Economic Order.
In the late 1980s, a scare based upon theoretical and primitive climate models that predicted man-made carbon emissions were causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming perfectly served these goals....
The central FCCC strategy to fight what was promoted as “anthropogenic” (man-made) climate change was brilliant…to put a value credit on cutbacks in the amounts of carbon dioxide emitted by fossil-burning industries, and then let other industries that produced amounts of CO2 emissions in excess of their allocations, purchase credits from them. In other words, they would create a trading market to buy and sell air.
Opening remarks offered by FCCC’s Environment Program Executive Director Maurice Strong who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil expressed an underlying priority very candidly: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”
thx no prob reposting, but might be better just highlight here and have folks follow the link to yr excellent interview (like I did)If Laird and Ninshub (and Alex) - as well as Bauer himself - would agree with my full re-posting it here, I would be glad to do so.
Laird, Alex, you are here - what do you say?
Laird, will you ask Ninshub or I should contact him via Psience Quest private message?
I can contact Bauer myself, easily - we're in a correspondence for long.
And for now, here is the first part of the interview, dealing with the philosophy and methodology, rather than sociology and psychology, of science:
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-interview-with-dr-henry-bauer-part-1
Laird, it seems to me that you try to portray scientific community is something separate from the rest of society, largely immune to the faults, biases and conflicts that are rampant in a society is a whole. But this is not the case. Academic elites are the integral part of the social elites in general, science leadership and stucture is interconnected with state and corporate leadership and structure by a large network of relations, both formal and informal - and the corruption that permeates the high echelons of government and commerce taints them as well.
And scientists are also not fundamentally different from any other human beings, having to deal with material incentives and interests, ideological dedications and prejudices, personal and group sympathies and antipathies etc. as anyone else.