4 ms·

Which is annoying and self-righteous, and laughably wrong, and charmingly unaware that it has exactly zero arguments to support its position -- apart from tone

Which is annoying and self-righteous, and laughably wrong, and charmingly unaware that it has exactly zero arguments to support its position -- apart from tone trolling, of course. I facepalmed on just about every paragraph, and I'm not even a graduate student. Just a taste: > Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. ... because there's no significant "skeptic" communities for relativity or geocentrism. Nobody has any vested interest in claiming those theories are false. Theoretical physicists and astronomers aren't constantly asked to defend their positions against fallacious argument after argument, nor have they to fight against a minor but very influential political minority which is on faith completely against them. No Secretary of Interior ever said: "If the troubles from theoretical physicists and geocentrists cannot be solved in the jury box or at the ballot box, perhaps the cartridge box should be used." If you can't see even that, there's no point in arguing. And then the completely bullshit tangent about how the Nuclear Winter equation is just as goofy as the Drake equation, which just is... just... facepalm. Quick, Crichton, tell me the probability that life on a planet evolves to intelligence. Since, you know, you just argued that it's as well understood and measurable as the reflectivity of dust. In regards to its line, that scientific knowledge is being perverted by politics... you know that psychological projection thing, when someone sees in others what they can't bear to see in themselves? I'm not usually someone that whips The Freud out that quickly but, damn, Crichton is really in contest for some psychoanalyzing. I mean, he's just argued that climate scientists are wrong, on purely political terms. Literally, he doesn't like the politics they do. Mind numbing.

nsxwolf 13y ago
Scientists have no need to "defend" global warming. They just need to keep doing the science. Oh, but they want to be making policy, not science. As an aside: I get the feeling from your comment that you might not be aware that Michael Crichton is dead.
- danielharan 13y ago
  Imagine being a scientist, and your models show a billion people could die soon. How would you take it if people told you: "You're such an alarmist. Shut up, and keep working on your models" And if scientists shouldn't speak up, who is left in public discourse?
  - kaybe 13y ago
    Clearly. The question is whether shouting 'Do something! here's a list of ideas and we'll check everything else you can come up with. DO SOMETHING!' counts as intenting to do policy as the parent says. The data is very scary. Seeing the conditions of the distant past makes me not want to repeat them. Before a scientist, I am a human being. Parent - seriously, what do you want us to do? Sit back, take more data, calculate more models, write some papers that only other scientists read? You, everyone, pays us for doing this, and it's our responsibility to make you listen. (Now, I'm quite young. My professors seem to have given up, one even said so. I sincerely hope it's not as bad as it looks.)
    - nsxwolf 13y ago
      Understand that you are scientists in the real world and not in a Roland Emmerich movie. You can warn and warn all you like, but if people don't listen, it's because they're free people who have made their own decisions through the political process. The answer is not to scream louder. They heard you, and don't care. Want to end the debate on global warming? Make it moot. Turn your research into great products and technologies that reduce carbon emissions and are simultaneously what people want. It's already happening: People are starting to want a Tesla S because it's considered by many to be the best car ever made. They're actually getting customers who don't give a rats ass about the environment, and that's exactly what you're going to need if you really want to save the world.
      - danielharan 13y ago
        Oh, so one minute you say all those climate modellers should shut up and do more science, the other, they should spend a few years learning to be automative engineers? We don't debate gravity through the political process. We can discuss how to tackle climate change, but that itself is not debatable. And if they defend it, it's because it's under attack. The industry FUD would have many believe that it's the scientists that have a vested interest.

nsxwolf 13y ago

Scientists have no need to "defend" global warming. They just need to keep doing the science. Oh, but they want to be making policy, not science. As an aside: I get the feeling from your comment that you might not be aware that Michael Crichton is dead.

danielharan 13y ago
Imagine being a scientist, and your models show a billion people could die soon. How would you take it if people told you: "You're such an alarmist. Shut up, and keep working on your models" And if scientists shouldn't speak up, who is left in public discourse?
- kaybe 13y ago
  Clearly. The question is whether shouting 'Do something! here's a list of ideas and we'll check everything else you can come up with. DO SOMETHING!' counts as intenting to do policy as the parent says. The data is very scary. Seeing the conditions of the distant past makes me not want to repeat them. Before a scientist, I am a human being. Parent - seriously, what do you want us to do? Sit back, take more data, calculate more models, write some papers that only other scientists read? You, everyone, pays us for doing this, and it's our responsibility to make you listen. (Now, I'm quite young. My professors seem to have given up, one even said so. I sincerely hope it's not as bad as it looks.)
  - nsxwolf 13y ago
    Understand that you are scientists in the real world and not in a Roland Emmerich movie. You can warn and warn all you like, but if people don't listen, it's because they're free people who have made their own decisions through the political process. The answer is not to scream louder. They heard you, and don't care. Want to end the debate on global warming? Make it moot. Turn your research into great products and technologies that reduce carbon emissions and are simultaneously what people want. It's already happening: People are starting to want a Tesla S because it's considered by many to be the best car ever made. They're actually getting customers who don't give a rats ass about the environment, and that's exactly what you're going to need if you really want to save the world.
    - danielharan 13y ago
      Oh, so one minute you say all those climate modellers should shut up and do more science, the other, they should spend a few years learning to be automative engineers? We don't debate gravity through the political process. We can discuss how to tackle climate change, but that itself is not debatable. And if they defend it, it's because it's under attack. The industry FUD would have many believe that it's the scientists that have a vested interest.