Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...This post argues that for over thirty years the public climate change debate has focused on the wrong scientific questions compared to those that ethics would ask of climate science. Since the mid-1960s opponents of climate change policies have demanded to know from science what are the known climate change impacts; yet ethics would ask: (a) What are the scientifically plausible climate change harms?, (b) Could these harms happen if we wait until all uncertainties are resolved and the consensus view turns out to be correct?, (c) Are the harms potentially catastrophic for some, and (d) Have the potential victims of climate change consented to be put at risk while uncertainties are resolved?
This post argues that what we should do about climate change is not a scientific-technical question but is essentially an ethical question and the failure to frame it as such has been responsible, at least in part, for a thirty-year delay in taking action.
This post argues the misplaced focus on the scientifically known, rather than scientifically plausible climate change impacts and subsequent ethical implications that come from scientific notice that humans are doing something dangerous, is partly responsible for over thirty years of delay in adopting climate change policies.
^^^^^^^^^
Did you argue against the Iraq war? If you theory is correct than you should not have. (d) Have the potential victims of Saddam Hussien consented to be put at risk while uncertainties are resolved? This post argues that what we should do about despots around the world is not a scientific-technical question but is essentially an ethical question and the failure to frame it as such has been responsible, at least in part, for a thirty-year delay in taking action.
I love it - you're comparing 30 years of scientific research to proven false allegations Saddam Hussein was stockpiling yellowcake uranium, was harboring Al Qaeda, etc.
That's just hilarious. Would you like to also draw a parallel to the Iran-Contra scandal as well?
...This post argues that for over thirty years the public climate change debate has focused on the wrong scientific questions compared to those that ethics would ask of climate science. Since the mid-1960s opponents of climate change policies have demanded to know from science what are the known climate change impacts; yet ethics would ask: (a) What are the scientifically plausible climate change harms?, (b) Could these harms happen if we wait until all uncertainties are resolved and the consensus view turns out to be correct?, (c) Are the harms potentially catastrophic for some, and (d) Have the potential victims of climate change consented to be put at risk while uncertainties are resolved?
This post argues that what we should do about climate change is not a scientific-technical question but is essentially an ethical question and the failure to frame it as such has been responsible, at least in part, for a thirty-year delay in taking action.
This post argues the misplaced focus on the scientifically known, rather than scientifically plausible climate change impacts and subsequent ethical implications that come from scientific notice that humans are doing something dangerous, is partly responsible for over thirty years of delay in adopting climate change policies.
Science has been asking the wrong questions?
You know why science isn't asking those types of questions? Because it isn't science.
Seriously, pick up a blueprint on the process of the scientific method, its creation, arguments for and against, the purpose, and all of the significant history relating to it.
Science is not politics. What this paper argues is politics. It argues to insert bias above that which can be measured. It promotes conclusions based on assumption.
That type of thinking is not simply incorrect, it is delusional. That is pure propaganda.
You know why science isn't asking those types of questions? Because it isn't science.
I work in a research institution with PhDs from about 20 different countries - I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt when they say "it's science."
Then there's that pesky group called the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
I work in a research institution with PhDs from about 20 different countries - I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt when they say "it's science."
Then there's that pesky group called the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
And you're of course hilariously wrong on the "history of science," one of our researchers here specializes in just that very field.
keep tilting at windmills if you want, just don't interrupt their clean energy production.
Appeal to authority.
Again, not science, but nice try.
And your "researcher" should quit his job and go flip burgers because he is a detriment to his field if he believes this garbage. I guess they will hand out diplomas to anyone now, as long as they dance the tune and toe the line.
This is a disturbing environmental story. Wild fires in Russia are spread over 500 square miles and come amid record breaking heat. The heat and drought have also destroyed much of the crops in this major grain growing region. I've been hearing about this on NPR the last couple of days. Here is the story from Bloomberg: Russian Fires Spread to 500 Square Miles as Wind Picks Up Amid Record Heat - Bloomberg
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
