Planet-9 Porsche Forum banner

3481 - 3496 of 3496 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
bull feces.

in 2001, Bjørn Lomborg authored "The Skeptical Environmentalist." in 2009 Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics. Lomborg campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol. "Several of Bjørn Lomborg's articles in [major] newspapers ... have been checked by Climate Feedback, a worldwide network of scientists who collectively assess the credibility of influential climate change media coverage. The Climate Feedback reviewers assessed that the scientific credibility ranged between "low" and "very low". The Climate Feedback reviewers come to the conclusion that in one case Lomborg "practices cherry-picking", in a second case he "had reached his conclusions through cherry-picking from a small subset of the evidence, misrepresenting the results of existing studies, and relying on flawed reasoning", in a third case "[his] article [is in] blatant disagreement with available scientific evidence, while the author does not offer adequate evidence to support his statements", and, in a fourth case, "The author, Lomborg, cherry-picks this specific piece of research and uses it in support of a broad argument against the value of climate policy. He also misrepresents the Paris Agreement to downplay its potential to curb future climate change.


the only thing your "good salesman" Michael Shellenberger is apparently good at is selling the idea of relying on nuclear power - and I imagine that he is richly compensated for doing so.

neither of these individuals is truly aligned with the IPCC climate change reports and the vast majority of intelligent, knowledgeable, highly-educated scientists across the world whom agree with their findings.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,482
I see. first guy is a skeptic so he’s rejected automatically.

second sounds rational, testified to Congress, but rejected for no specific reason.

Good luck getting serious money from US taxpayers. You went right back to ... insulting the public cause scientists are smart (intelligent, knowledgeable, educated) implying the people you want money from are stupid. A winning selling point that has worked so well.

you’re right. We are all going to die. Read the Juliana vs US case, kids sued Pres Obama and Trump. 9th Circuit just dismissed due to lack of standing. Judiciary does not make US policy, the elected officials and electorate do. Your cause has been unable to sell the electorate. Instead of accepting someone like Shellenberger he’s rejected. You’re cause is doomed. Sad. I tried.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
I see. first guy is a skeptic so he’s rejected automatically.

second sounds rational, testified to Congress, but rejected for no specific reason.

You went right back to ... insulting the public cause scientists are smart (intelligent, knowledgeable, educated) implying the people you want money from are stupid.
yes - now, you are beginning to get it - 'first guy is a skeptic so he’s rejected automatically,' by about 97% of the climate change experts in their respective fields.

yes, second guy 'sounds rational' - if you are pushing nuclear energy. and yes, he testified before congress - but all kinds of people testify before congress, hero's and villians and every type in between. however, 'testifying before congress' is irrelevant in terms of the topic under discussion here.

incorrect. no desire nor intent on my part to ever 'insult the public.' never stated nor implied that 'the people I want money from are stupid.' first of all, I don't want money - from anybody. and secondly, I would like to think that we can all acknowledge and appreciate the fact that genuine 'experts,' in any field of endeavor, tend to know more about their particular areas of interest, than lay people typically do. it is, in large part, their knowledge that separates them from the rest of us.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,484
yes, second guy 'sounds rational' - if you are pushing nuclear energy.
His approach is rational and realistic understanding that "renewables" will never become feasible until many years have gone buy. Try listening to these guys


They are big time advocates of "climate change". One of their recent podcasts (sorry I don't know which one specifically) was speaking about this subject. Its unreasonable and impossible to just jump to what some people want. There must be an intermediary transition for decades and Nuclear fission, next generation reactors, fits the bill. Just get over HBO's Chernobyl mini series and don't worry about glowing in the dark.

These guys are major supporters. They can't go a week without discussing the world is going to end, BUT, they know its not in 12 years, maybe 100 or 1000 if ever. Its this, antivaxxers and anti GMO that they hit on all the time. But I give them credit for being practical and knowing you can't change human nature. You should give them a try.

The last two episodes in December they were getting frantic sounding to me that they know no one is paying attention to any of this.

incorrect. no desire nor intent on my part to ever 'insult the public.' never stated nor implied that 'the people I want money from are stupid.' first of all, I don't want money - from anybody.
I don't mean you as in "you" but "You" generically as in those that want something done. They UN wants big money. The big nations are saying no. With no money, there is no transition to anything else. Give money from the rich nations to the poor. And yet at COP25 they got pushback and rules not set since 2015. It doesn't sound like its going well.

I would like to think that we can all acknowledge and appreciate the fact that genuine 'experts,' in any field of endeavor, tend to know more about their particular areas of interest, than lay people typically do. it is, in large part, their knowledge that separates them from the rest of us.
You see, that's exactly the problem I've been trying to explain. They can't explain anything. They can be the smartest people on earth, but if the can't sell it to the general public, then they will die from their inability to sell the public. It matter none that they are smart. What matters is what the public buys. You know the old saying:

Its not what you know, its who you know. (or something like that). It's People, that matters, not science. The science is "FOR" the people. Just as the case of Juliana vs US showed, its the "Electorate" that decides. Sell the electorate, and then, those that do want money for their cause, might get money. No sell? No money.

I hope you can see this. In the end, its always about money. Its not about "the scientists". Its about human nature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
Science is not for the people, I don't even understand what that means. Science stands on its own. What is done with the knowledge gained though is a different issue. Since we seem to have become a fairly stupid society we just ignore anything that doesn't directly affect us. However, if it makes our phones faster or our TVs bigger and more colorful, then great attention is paid.
As was said some where in the recent past, were pretty much screwed. Accept it, move on, and enjoy your life.
MOO😞
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,486
Science is not for the people, I don't even understand what that means. Science stands on its own. What is done with the knowledge gained though is a different issue.
"It's People, that matters, not science. The science is "FOR" the people."

Everything done by human beings is "for" human beings. It doesn't matter if its "just to figure it out". Its too figure it out for human beings. AFAIK, within the US, funding for "climate scientists" can come from charity, private companies maybe working to make a profit in solutions (example, maybe this company might want chemists), or government. Its all done for humanity. Example. Even pure research has an end game. Its for "people".


"These fundamental discoveries and their potential for translation are why my research program is funded by the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation. However, engineering-related applications are not the primary reason we do this research. The nature of discovery is that it is impossible to anticipate what you will find."

In the end, its about people, nothing more, just people. In order to fund it, and most comes from the government, the money has to come from taxes or borrowing. So China or other foreign countries (whoever is buying T notes) can actually be funding the research. But borrowing has a limit. Either the country goes bankrupt, or the economy expands as it does now to remain relatively stable. By far the largest funding must come from electorate supported sourcing. If the electorate doesn't buy in, then no money for you. The electorate makes the funding decisions by elected the Congress and President, which together creates laws.

But yeah, "if" the world is going to end, if you believe all that, kiss the world goodbye. Meanwhile, realists might think not. Follow the investors. Watch who is buying what. Look for the Tundra buyers. The money flows where the future money exists.

Besides, Yellowstone is going to blow first and then no one in the US will be worrying about any of this.:oops:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
"It's People, that matters, not science. The science is "FOR" the people."

Everything done by human beings is "for" human beings. It doesn't matter if its "just to figure it out". Its too figure it out for human beings. AFAIK, within the US, funding for "climate scientists" can come from charity, private companies maybe working to make a profit in solutions (example, maybe this company might want chemists), or government. Its all done for humanity. Example. Even pure research has an end game. Its for "people".


"These fundamental discoveries and their potential for translation are why my research program is funded by the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation. However, engineering-related applications are not the primary reason we do this research. The nature of discovery is that it is impossible to anticipate what you will find."

In the end, its about people, nothing more, just people. In order to fund it, and most comes from the government, the money has to come from taxes or borrowing. So China or other foreign countries (whoever is buying T notes) can actually be funding the research. But borrowing has a limit. Either the country goes bankrupt, or the economy expands as it does now to remain relatively stable. By far the largest funding must come from electorate supported sourcing. If the electorate doesn't buy in, then no money for you. The electorate makes the funding decisions by elected the Congress and President, which together creates laws.

But yeah, "if" the world is going to end, if you believe all that, kiss the world goodbye. Meanwhile, realists might think not. Follow the investors. Watch who is buying what. Look for the Tundra buyers. The money flows where the future money exists.

Besides, Yellowstone is going to blow first and then no one in the US will be worrying about any of this.:oops:
Let's get our semantics aligned first. My perspective of the phrase "Science for the people" means to me science that is undertaken only because it will affect and possibly benefit the general public, the world, or some large group of people. A perfect example of that would be the pharmaceutical field that relies greatly on new discoveries. These companies exist so they can sell new discoveries to the world (ie: for the people) and make billions of dollars doing so. On the other hand, if you mean science by one person or by a group in a lab, then we are talking two totally different things.

I would call science in general "science by the people", not "science for the people". I think it's obvious that you can't separate science from people, since without people there would be no science discovery- at least not until chimpanzees etc can start designing experiments. However, the idea that science is "for the people" makes it into something else that I don't believe it is. Science can be that but distilled to its basics it is not. Many of the most important discoveries do not have any applications for years after the discovery is made. Engineering & practical applications must wait until the world catches up. In the science for the people world, things like this would not even be investigated because there would be no practical usage for it. Your example of DoD/NSF funding only gets to the source of funding, which isn't science. The science is what someone or some group wanted to investigate & thought that the gov would pony up to help make it happen. The science can still happen without that funding. That doesn't mean it will, since some things are just too big for the average basement - think moon shots, etc. But it can and many science discoveries have. A new planet was just discovered by a 12yo I believe. That was science. Was it for the people? No, it was for the 12yo who thought this is really cool stuff and - oh my, that looks like a new planet.

BTW, your link to PBS above basically sums up my belief on their last line: "Discovery-based research is most fruitful when new knowledge is sought for its own sake." This is not for the benefit of people, it's for the benefit of nothing more than pure knowledge. I would extend this to say that that knowledge might someday be used "for the people" but that is not a requirement.

"Science for the people" can exist but it's not a requirement for science discovery.

MOO
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,488
Let's get our semantics aligned first. My perspective of the phrase "Science for the people" means to me science that is undertaken only because it will affect and possibly benefit the general public, the world, or some large group of people. ... A new planet was just discovered by a 12yo I believe. That was science. Was it for the people? No, it was for the 12yo who thought this is really cool stuff and - oh my, that looks like a new planet.
This is semantics. All science is done for humanity. There is no other reason. If a 12 year old discovers a planet because "its cool stuff", then he did it for himself, for his own satisfaction. He is part of humanity. He's is not a different species. If you could say he didn't do it for some part of humanity, for example he searched for a new planet because of a rock in his backward or for his pet goldfish, then that would be something else entirely. In the end, its about people, personal reasons or otherwise.

The whine here is "who" pays for it. As you said, major efforts require serious funding. Of course its the source of funding. That's the entire discussion. Its not "science for the sake of it". Its not climb the mountain "because its there". Its "who pays" for any of the research, and a possibly solution.

If you (the generic "you" encompassing the entire field of climate change) wants serious money, real money, then the electorate has to be convinced that its a good idea to take the from money you, I, and everyone else who work, and give it to someone else. IOW, they have to be convinced to give their own hard earned money, their sweat, their time, to someone else for this cause.

It hasn't happen and I don't see it ever will. It can't be sold, at least with those currently trying to sell it. As discussed before, IMO the moment the subject became politicized, "They", the sellers, lost half the nation. I'm not talking about whether or not the data is correct, only who is willing to give money. Example


43% of the nation wouldn't give $1 a month per household, not person but household. That should tell you something.
72% would not give $10. Yet one person might spend $6 for a fancy cup of coffee every day.

They can't sell it. So, we all die.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
This is semantics. All science is done for humanity. There is no other reason. If a 12 year old discovers a planet because "its cool stuff", then he did it for himself, for his own satisfaction. He is part of humanity. He's is not a different species. If you could say he didn't do it for some part of humanity, for example he searched for a new planet because of a rock in his backward or for his pet goldfish, then that would be something else entirely. In the end, its about people, personal reasons or otherwise.

The whine here is "who" pays for it. As you said, major efforts require serious funding. Of course its the source of funding. That's the entire discussion. Its not "science for the sake of it". Its not climb the mountain "because its there". Its "who pays" for any of the research, and a possibly solution.

If you (the generic "you" encompassing the entire field of climate change) wants serious money, real money, then the electorate has to be convinced that its a good idea to take the from money you, I, and everyone else who work, and give it to someone else. IOW, they have to be convinced to give their own hard earned money, their sweat, their time, to someone else for this cause.

It hasn't happen and I don't see it ever will. It can't be sold, at least with those currently trying to sell it. As discussed before, IMO the moment the subject became politicized, "They", the sellers, lost half the nation. I'm not talking about whether or not the data is correct, only who is willing to give money. Example


43% of the nation wouldn't give $1 a month per household, not person but household. That should tell you something.
72% would not give $10. Yet one person might spend $6 for a fancy cup of coffee every day.

They can't sell it. So, we all die.
I'm sorry but our definitions don't match. With that logic, everything anyone does is done for humanity..... Wait a minute, I need to go take a leak. Good, I feel better now and all of humanity is better for it.... Do you see my point? I can't make it any more clear.

My disagreement is with your following quote:
"Its not what you know, its who you know. (or something like that). It's People, that matters, not science. The science is "FOR" the people." No it's not. You are confusing science with marketing. They may appear to be the same these days but they aren't.
MOO and FWIW
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,490
You are confusing science with marketing. They may appear to be the same these days but they aren't.
MOO and FWIW
OK, but thats my worry. That the climate change people will never get the money they need, provided their alarmist advertising is really true. Sure, that's marketing, they seem poor at it to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
I have said the below thing many times in the last decade. It seems like it is a good time for yet another repeat now.

In order to fully and exactly assess the ammount of money salesmen and lawyers deserve to be paid, all you need is that every scientist on the planet hangs their lab coat and sticks "Gone fishing" note to their screen.

End of transmission.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
I have said the below thing many times in the last decade. It seems like it is a good time for yet another repeat now.

In order to fully and exactly assess the ammount of money salesmen and lawyers deserve to be paid, all you need is that every scientist on the planet hangs their lab coat and sticks "Gone fishing" note to their screen.

End of transmission.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
And the entire medical community should go with them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,001 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,494
And now onto another subject "No one knows how anything works anymore"

If you haven't paid attention, and it might not be national news, VA is trying to pass some law about banning some kind of guns or whatever. The details don't matter. I'm not interested in the politics or positions on the subject. Yesterday there was some kind of protest at the state capital where 10,000 showed up, many with rifles. The media was breathless waiting for something to happen. Nothing happened.

Look at the video below, the comment below by someone who does not live in the US, and subsequent pushback


So what's the point?

"any country would permit the ..."

I guess they just don't understand how it works. The "country" permits nothing. That's how Monarchs, Dictators, etc work. The Bill of Rights is not about "permitting" citizens to do something. Its the complete opposite. Its about what the citizens tell the government they cannot do because the rights are innate to the human, given to them by their creator or whatever you believe. The People tell the government what they cannot do (e.g., "shall not infringe"), not the other way around.

After 250 years, you might think other countries get this, But since they don't seem to be teaching this much in the US, I guess I can't expect people in other countries to understand.

Government permit? 🤣 That's funny.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
The whine here is "who" pays for it. ... That's the entire discussion. ... Its "who pays"...

If ... (the generic "you" encompassing the entire field of climate change) wants serious money, ... then the electorate has to be convinced that its a good idea to take the from money you, I, and everyone else who work, ...

43% of the nation wouldn't give $1 a month per household, not person but household. That should tell you something.
72% would not give $10. Yet one person might spend $6 for a fancy cup of coffee every day.
in your remarks, you seem to suggest that the funding required to tackle / mitigate the undesirable effects of climate change will be coming primarily from the altruistic donations of decent, good-hearted people who actually care about maintaining a stable environment. this assumption would be entirely misleading. the money needed, as previously stated in previous post #3468, will be derived from increased costs for a vast array of products and services - and, I would imagine, some new taxes too. but none of these costs will be elective options that people can take advantage of, only if they truly desire.

the harsh reality will be another matter altogether.

if you plan on being here - taking up space, breathing fresh air, drinking clean water, consuming nutritious food and utilizing other precious resources - then you better plan on paying a hell-of-a-lot more for the privilege; and doing so specifically because of climate change. there will be no free lunches for you, chows, or anyone else. we have all, in one way or another, to one degree or another, we have all had a hand in creating the problems now threatening to overwhelm us. very soon, we will all begin suffering the consequences - and absorbing the costs.

there is no other way.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,899 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,496
in your remarks, you seem to suggest that the funding required to tackle / mitigate the undesirable effects of climate change will be coming primarily from the altruistic donations of decent, good-hearted people who actually care about maintaining a stable environment. this assumption would be entirely misleading. the money needed, as previously stated in previous post #3468, will be derived from increased costs for a vast array of products and services - and, I would imagine, some new taxes too. but none of these costs will be elective options that people can take advantage of, only if they truly desire.

the harsh reality will be another matter altogether.

if you plan on being here - taking up space, breathing fresh air, drinking clean water, consuming nutritious food and utilizing other precious resources - then you better plan on paying a hell-of-a-lot more for the privilege; and doing so specifically because of climate change. there will be no free lunches for you, chows, or anyone else. we have all, in one way or another, to one degree or another, we have all had a hand in creating the problems now threatening to overwhelm us. very soon, we will all begin suffering the consequences - and absorbing the costs.

there is no other way.
Close, but not quite. While some funding does come from charity, and some from capitalists who seek to make profits from "solutions", it seems the greatest push comes from the UN (or US politicians) seeking money to "transform" the energy sector. To do that requires taxation on the American Public, that is, the forced taking of the money earned from Americans to transfer that wealth to poorer nations of in the effort to combat CO2 in the USA. This is not going to happen because "they" and their surrogates (e.g., celebrities) can't sell it. "They" know they can't tax the US. They came out and said it: The need to change eliminate capitalism.


"we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution."

I think your saying that "if true", and they can't take the money via taxation, then we will all pay for various such as moving, higher food costs, or other ways a changing climate will effect humans? Correct? Did I read that right?

This is where we have a core disconnect. I've always said "so what"? I don't see a bleak future. I see opportunity. I believe in human invention and ingenuity, the thing that sets us apart from the dinosaurs. That 7 mile wide asteroid might have been a great extinction level even 65M years ago. Today, humans would survive. People will make FORTUNES on this. This is why I keep saying "Watch the land speculators" Watch who invests in what. Necessity being the mother of invention, some bright engineers/scientists will make fortunes building something. Moving companies might make a killing. Think of the tour companies in the Arctic.

IOW, instead of seeing, potential death and destruction, I choose to see the glass half full, full of opportunity. "If True" that does not mean not to be concerned with suffering. To the contrary, it means figure out how to relieve suffering.

I choose to believe the best in mankind, in its inventive ability, in it humane side to help those truly in need. The US, in modern times, endlessly gives to those in need, to the detriment of its own people. Ive seen it in action. I believe in the US ability to respond, as required, and the ability to innovate. There are fortunes out their to be made - IF TRUE. Capitalism finds way. As in Jurassic Park, Life finds a way.
 
3481 - 3496 of 3496 Posts
Top