#MarchForScience open thread

[TheReal_ND]

So, I'm looking at the protest signs... Are they just all one liners? Do these people even take these things seriously? It's like twitter spilled out onto the street.

I honestly don't know. Do you want to guess again?

[TheReal_ND]

With any luck global warming kills us all. We deserve to die lel

[TheReal_ND]

[ssu]

The climate change thing for example, is especially annoying because nobody ever talks about the mother fucking science. Talk to a random climate change believer, and it's just 98% percent of all climate scientists believe, or all climate scientists say , but if you press them, they have no source for these stats, and they can't argue why we're affecting the climate. And I should mention that I say this as someone that thinks it's reasonable to believe that we may be changing the planet's temperature. But when you get a bunch of self righteous zealots that have no clue what they're talking about, screaming at people about climate change, of course people are going to take the opposite position. It got Trump elected after all. Additionally proponents will never bring up funding issues, or lack thereof, that is, how researchers can't get grants if they aren't pushing the climate change agenda. This is has some really awful consequences too. It means that Exxon is going to fund the next study showing that climate change is bogus. People need to back off so we can get more data that can't be called into question. You probably saw this video, but Nye sounds like a lunatic. You're a scientist right? Use this platform to educate people, not chant dogma.

Well, you can follow the discussion from 7:04 where finally Tucker Carlson asks a simple question from Nye "What would the climate be now without humans involved" and then Nye gives a simple answer: "It would look like it would be at 1750", which is a rather good answer. Nye continues to give then examples of what basically the environment was in 1750. Tucker seems a bit baffled about and starts accusing Nye of using the languages of politics and later admits "Ok, that might be all true..." yet then simply starts saying the Nye doesn't know what he is talking about and that he himself is very open minded. What answer would have been "scientific" to Calrson? A listing of temperature range estimations or what? References to studies? Really?

Yeah well, who in the conversation sounds more of a lunatic is a subjective viewpoint. Yet more likely is that interviews that don't turn into a fight and don't have people talking over each other, doesn't have the entertainment value that the MSM seeks. Likely both men could have a great discussion about the issue (if Tucker would prepare for the interview), but it would be too boring to the ordinary viewer.

And that Exxon will fund the next study that climate change is bogus?
That's likely bogus itself, far more likely they will say in the future what they say now:

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.

Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks.

See ExxonMobile site:Our position on climate change

Anyway, any topic like climate change or the danger of nuclear power etc. have become such heated political debates that aquiring more data or studies won't change the minds of people. The data can always be called into question. In the end only the size of the people believing something is true or false varies.

[TheReal_ND]

I think we have a new god now...

[TheReal_ND]

Hmm? No. at 1750? I mean prove it for one. For two earth experiences general climat shifts every so often. At one time Antarctica supported life. Yeah nah I mean sure maybe we have altered the climate, in fact I'm sure we have to some degree and should probably revisit how to minimalize it but at the end of the day we are slaves to greater forces than our industry on this planet.

Think twice before you start spouting off about crippling carbon taxes because that's all this is really about. The fucking media has been raising an entire generation to believe every sensational headline they drip in our minds. Of course it's about money and throttling our industry. Of course they don't actually care and will use it to make a billion smoke stacks in China. They don't care.

[TheReal_ND]

And there it is

[kybkh]

Not breaking news: many scientific studies are ultimately proved wrong!


When a theory is shown to be incorrect or a publication in error, it is all too easy to think that the scientist who came up with this theory is a liar or a dishonest fraudster intent on misleading the public for personal gain. Or as Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, puts it:

Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/occ ... ies-wrongs

[doc_loliday]

@ssu, I should have mentioned Carlson's fail at the end. He really didn't have a good answer to Nye's 1750 remark. He began to sound dogmatic himself, when up to that point, he really had Nye on the ropes. They both have their positions and weren't about to change their minds. The larger point remains, nobody is trying to educate the public and I believe that people are interested. It's surprising that a topic so heated, gets such little attention beyond "who is right". Regarding Exxon, I wasn't trying to pick on them specifically. There have been questionable studies backed by energy companies, and I was too lazy to link to them, although Exxon's stance is a bit of PR imo.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... al-effort/

[Martin Hash]

Tucker let me down. Here, Tucker, I'll help:

"What would the climate be like now?"
"It would be like 1750."
"Oh, are you a climate scientist?"
"No, but I am a scientist."
"I thought only climate scientists could understand Climate Change?"
"No, I think anybody who thinks about it can."
"But what about the Physics Nobel Laureate that thinks the climate would not be like 1750?"
"Well, not Nobel Laureates, only guys in bowties who don't even have PhDs, and hipsters, of course. Plus feminists."
"Yeah, get the fuck off my stage."