Doing his bit for climate change…

jackieguaccamo said:
And people believe this shit..
Click to expand...
It never fails to amaze me that the people on Social media platforms who clearly left school with one CSE in woodwork seem to know more about climate science , epidemiology and macro economics than folks who have spent their lives studying it .
Or more likely ,as evidenced every day on here, they are gullible fuckwits who believe any old shit they read on twitter .
 
It gets a bit confusing though, when scientists, public health experts and economists give alternative views to the consensus.
Einstein had dyslexia and delayed speech as a child. He couldn't speak comfortably until he was six.
He often clashed with teachers and the regimen of school and taught himself high level maths and philosophy at the age of 12.
Had he not railed against conventional scientific "wisdom", the world would not have weapons that can kill millions in seconds.
Which would put climate science, epidemiology and macro economics arguments to bed for quite a few generations.
 
sixthswan said:
It gets a bit confusing though, when scientists, public health experts and economists give alternative views to the consensus.
Einstein had dyslexia and delayed speech as a child. He couldn't speak comfortably until he was six.
He often clashed with teachers and the regimen of school and taught himself high level maths and philosophy at the age of 12.
Had he not railed against conventional scientific "wisdom", the world would not have weapons that can kill millions in seconds.
Which would put climate science, epidemiology and macro economics arguments to bed for quite a few generations.
Click to expand...
That's a very good reply, but Golfy seems immune to most things though, except he is 100% right.
 
sixthswan said:
It gets a bit confusing though, when scientists, public health experts and economists give alternative views to the consensus.
Einstein had dyslexia and delayed speech as a child. He couldn't speak comfortably until he was six.
He often clashed with teachers and the regimen of school and taught himself high level maths and philosophy at the age of 12.
Had he not railed against conventional scientific "wisdom", the world would not have weapons that can kill millions in seconds.
Which would put climate science, epidemiology and macro economics arguments to bed for quite a few generations.
Click to expand...
I suspect Einstein and Wacky have slightly different ways of arguing against proven scientific data .
 
Perhaps.

But I'd definitely be cautious about attaching level of formal education, to wisdom and the ability to ponder life's big questions.

Some of the dumbest fucks I know, have post-graduate and beyond qualifications.

Some of the cleverest, left school with nothing but street smart.

Climate change scientists drive to work and catch planes.

Epidemiologists (some of them) will admit the early approach to Covid was wrong. For example children in areas with hardly any cases, locked out of schools.

The macro economists. Doing a great job eh.

All the experts - often wrong, rarely right. to return to Einstein:

"...a scientist is a mimosa when he himself has made a mistake, and a roaring lion when he discovers a mistake of others."
 
sixthswan said:
Had he not railed against conventional scientific "wisdom", the world would not have weapons that can kill millions in seconds.
Click to expand...
If you're referring to Newton's law, Einstein took a 200 year old theory and posited a different theory, which was only proved correct a further 100 years later (give or take). Many other of his theories have been disproven. This is how science advances, and is brilliant: have a theory -> prove or disprove.

If I'm following you correctly then you're suggesting climate change theories may also be disproven? I mean, I guess there is always a chance...but we now know these theories were discussed in the boardrooms of Shell back in the 1960s and have been shown to be wholly accurate. Theory -> proof.

It's feels like the same deflection tactics that have been used for 50+ years when people use as a "well, what if" argument for discussing climate as a way to prolong the denier arguments. 🤷‍♂️
 
Who was more embarrassed, the police or the passerby? I like that big cop at the end, he said 'screw this, I'm walking' and the convoy went on without him.
 
Adumass said:
If you're referring to Newton's law, Einstein took a 200 year old theory and posited a different theory, which was only proved correct a further 100 years later (give or take). Many other of his theories have been disproven. This is how science advances, and is brilliant: have a theory -> prove or disprove.

If I'm following you correctly then you're suggesting climate change theories may also be disproven? I mean, I guess there is always a chance...but we now know these theories were discussed in the boardrooms of Shell back in the 1960s and have been shown to be wholly accurate. Theory -> proof.

It's feels like the same deflection tactics that have been used for 50+ years when people use as a "well, what if" argument for discussing climate as a way to prolong the denier arguments. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

My post was a response to the suggestion that people who didn't get school qualifications, are a bit thick and more prone to believe that experts are wrong.

I was making the point that even experts disagree about climate change, or can be hypocritical and bleat on about aforementioned change, while contributing to that hypothesised change themselves.

Expertise (some) tells us that we must avoid manmade climate change, but also provides us with weapons of mass destruction, rockets burning obscene amounts of fuel, jet fighters, bombs, cars, lorries, nuclear power plants etc. Experts eh.

Einstein was used as an example, because he was a "rebel" at school and hated the parrot-fashion formal education on offer. He was creative in thought, questioned everything and taught himself what he needed to know.

Personally I don't think we are treating our planet well. Plastics in the oceans aren't a good thing. Chopping down trees on an industrial scale isn't wise. Pumping too much carbon into the atmosphere is daft. But I remain suspicious of the climate change agenda from governments.
 
sixthswan said:
My post was a response to the suggestion that people who didn't get school qualifications, are a bit thick and more prone to believe that experts are wrong.

I was making the point that even experts disagree about climate change, or can be hypocritical and bleat on about aforementioned change, while contributing to that hypothesised change themselves.

Expertise (some) tells us that we must avoid manmade climate change, but also provides us with weapons of mass destruction, rockets burning obscene amounts of fuel, jet fighters, bombs, cars, lorries, nuclear power plants etc. Experts eh.

Einstein was used as an example, because he was a "rebel" at school and hated the parrot-fashion formal education on offer. He was creative in thought, questioned everything and taught himself what he needed to know.

Personally I don't think we are treating our planet well. Plastics in the oceans aren't a good thing. Chopping down trees on an industrial scale isn't wise. Pumping too much carbon into the atmosphere is daft. But I remain suspicious of the climate change agenda from governments.
Click to expand...
What's in it for them??
Currently the energy industry (the oil industry as was) has spent billions if not trillions in delaying energy usage they don't own. That's their point, they already take advantage of oil usage so they're happy, until they're in a position to control the energy market in renewables, hydrogen, nuclear, water, wind etc they'll keep paying lobbyists to delay changeover, then suddenly they'll be all for it, and gouge you on that.
There is no perfect solution to stop man made climate change, govts have been far too slow to do anything about it, and western govts have a 200 year head start in pollution. Why do you think china is pissed off it's being told to cut emissions when the uk and USA had a big start and pay no worse consequences for it? we've never paid the true price for using fossil fuels because it will be ridiculously expensive and tank the economy.
What govts should be doing for energy is devolving it down to the lowest and most local production/consumption methods. 30% of electricity is lost in transmission, so why not make it where it's used ie your own home.
instead of spending billions on power plant boondoggles and then have to maintain the transmission infrastructure, use the money to put solar panels on a million roofs, put windpower in a million gardens, put small hydro electric generators eg water wheels in streams and rivers etc etc.
Put the power (literally) in the hands of the people and away from the govt and energy monopolies.
 
sixthswan said:
My post was a response to the suggestion that people who didn't get school qualifications, are a bit thick and more prone to believe that experts are wrong.

I was making the point that even experts disagree about climate change, or can be hypocritical and bleat on about aforementioned change, while contributing to that hypothesised change themselves.

Expertise (some) tells us that we must avoid manmade climate change, but also provides us with weapons of mass destruction, rockets burning obscene amounts of fuel, jet fighters, bombs, cars, lorries, nuclear power plants etc. Experts eh.

Einstein was used as an example, because he was a "rebel" at school and hated the parrot-fashion formal education on offer. He was creative in thought, questioned everything and taught himself what he needed to know.

Personally I don't think we are treating our planet well. Plastics in the oceans aren't a good thing. Chopping down trees on an industrial scale isn't wise. Pumping too much carbon into the atmosphere is daft. But I remain suspicious of the climate change agenda from governments.
Click to expand...
qualifications and intelligence are two different things. foxonwater should not have conflated the two.
However, thick people are more prone to disinformation, there's plenty of psychological research on that. They're easier to manipulate as are angry people. this is why the political right constantly plays culture wars to keep low information/high anger voters riled up as they are more likely to vote for them.
Einstein clearly wasn't thick, and many of his theories have been borne out through rigorous scientific testing.
for those of us that don't believe there's a giant conspiracy behind everything, i would just say show us the money, if your theory is worth any salt, test it, and have it peer reviewed. That's all you have to do to convince large swathes of people with critical thinking skills that you are on the right track.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tuz_Not_Tuzz said:
qualifications and intelligence are two different things. foxonwater should not have conflated the two.
However, thick people are more prone to disinformation, there's plenty of psychological research on that. They're easier to manipulate as are angry people. this is why the political right constantly plays culture wars to keep low information/high anger voters riled up as they are more likely to vote for them.
Einstein clearly wasn't thick, and many of his theories have been borne out through rigorous scientific testing.
for those of us that don't believe there's a giant conspiracy behind everything, i would just say show us the money, if your theory is worth any salt, test it, and have it peer reviewed. That's all you have to do to convince large swathes of people with critical thinking skills that you are on the right track.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you're following the money and you're not being manipulated.

As you say, anyone with just a little 'skill' in critical thinking can see that it's JUST 'the political right' that play culture wars. Just 'the right' that have angry followers riled up and fully manipulated to vote for them.

😃😃
 
RegiRoka said:
I'm glad you're following the money and you're not being manipulated.

As you say, anyone with just a little 'skill' in critical thinking can see that it's JUST 'the political right' that play culture wars. Just 'the right' that have angry followers riled up and fully manipulated to vote for them.

😃😃
Click to expand...
glad you've seen the light regi. :)
The right use culture wars as a deflection against their hijacking and ransacking of the economy at the expense of the working man/woman.
The left stupidly play the culture wars in the hope that more people will vote for them, they don't do it to make angry voters vote for them, it actually has the opposite effect and plays right into the hands of the right wing culture warriors. it's one of the reasons labour hasn't been in power for 13 years because they don't say "it's the economy stupid", they try to pander to every minority's wishes.
both play the culture wars but for very different reasons, and with very different outcomes, as anybody with any 'skill' in critical thinking would know. :)
 
Tuz_Not_Tuzz said:
glad you've seen the light regi. :)
The right use culture wars as a deflection against their hijacking and ransacking of the economy at the expense of the working man/woman.
The left stupidly play the culture wars in the hope that more people will vote for them, they don't do it to make angry voters vote for them, it actually has the opposite effect and plays right into the hands of the right wing culture warriors. it's one of the reasons labour hasn't been in power for 13 years because they don't say "it's the economy stupid", they try to pander to every minority's wishes.
both play the culture wars but for very different reasons, and with very different outcomes, as anybody with any 'skill' in critical thinking would know. :)
Click to expand...
Well that's definitely a better reply than the other ludicrous one of yours...
Better, but still a load of old bollocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top