Poll: Has Science Been Beneficial or Detrimental to Humanity?

[tgw]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

No need to disprove the laws of thermodynamics.  There's much more that goes into the creation of the world's climate system.  And science has very little understanding of it.  Doubt me?  Scientists can't predicate next week's weather but they're capable of predicting the rise in ocean levels over 100 years?

wow. jump from thermodynamics to comparing super-complex meteorology to a known phenomenon that spans over centuries, trying to make a point (maybe? which point?) without any arguments.

Manipulative populist drivel.

 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I just looked in the mirror and I don't see stupid so I know it's not me.

maybe it's time to visit TOP CHAROEN.

Edited December 29, 2021 by tgw

[OneMoreFarang]

30 minutes ago, DBath said:

You do still believe in Santa, right? (JK)

Absolutely!

[DBath]

5 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Absolutely!

Nice, that's what I call a picture!!!

[DBath]

After reading through all 4 pages yesterday, I knew it was only a matter of time before the 'science nerds' and 'propellerheads' took over this thread. ????

[OneMoreFarang]

15 minutes ago, DBath said:

propellerheads

?

 

[DBath]

10 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

?

 

Good stuff…that made my day, and it’s only 11am here, thanks! 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

You had to look up an explanation of the laws of thermodynamics via a comic duo of the sixties. It's actually quite a good simplification for a layperson.

Now I suggest you look up the terms albedo and clathrate, because they are also involved in global warming/climate change. Actually and potentially. Or perhaps you may like reading Friedrich Schiller, who was the first to come up with the concept of the butterfly effect over 200 years ago.

Denialism of climate science comes in the forms of it's a conspiracy, it's a natural cycle, it isn't happening, it's not man-made. It reminds me of Canute's courtiers.

As I posted previously on this thread, science does not care what you believe.

No, I didn't have to look it up.  This isn't my first go around debating with climate alarmists, LOL.  Here and elsewhere.  It was a line I used to serve a dual purpose.  Firstly as a lead in to go along with the satirical video and an excuse to introduce it.  And also to see if anyone is astute enough to catch on to the play acting.  I like to get an indication of how clever an opponent is.  It ain't scientific by any means but sometimes it yields accurate results.

 

You thought it believable so that tells me something about how gullible you may be.  I'm not concluding that you are but it appears, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you keep yourself knowledgeable about the "science" of "climate change" while dismissing other aspects perhaps out of hand.  If you are blowing off the financial aspects of "climate change" to conspiracy theory without doing any investigative work yourself then I'd say you are indeed gullible.  Gullible in the sense that you may be and probably are uncritically accepting the opinions of others who say, "Nothing to see here."  Ideally you should be critical of every aspect of a subject and not be dismissive of those aspects which don't necessarily appeal to your senses.

 

I've heard all of the arguments from the climate doomsayers many times over.  Yet when it comes to producing actual short term, or even mid-term predications it's always a fail.  As I mentioned, with our present day scientific knowledge we are incapable of predicting the weather consistently even a week in advance.  Why?  Too many variables, including the interrelationships.

So while you mention two more variables we're up to four (wow!) if added to the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics.  Can you produce a comprehensive list?  Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question because even if you attempted it you can't account for the unknown.

So even if you were to create a comprehensive list of every possible influential variable you'd then have to add chaos theory to the mix.  To make it easy I'll copy and paste the relevant parts from Wiki (for the benefit of posters who aren't familiar with it as I'm sure you undoubtedly are familiar):
 

Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnectedness, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.  The butterfly effect, an underlying principle of chaos, describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state (meaning that there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions).  A metaphor for this behavior is that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas.

 

So in order to accurately make climate predictions one has to account for every influential variable and have a complete and unerring understanding of all of the interconnections of all of the variables in practical and real time operational terms.  Feel free to let me know if you think I'm in error on this.

 

My advice?  Practice on, say, a ten-day forecast and keep working on it until you get you're able to get consistent, predictable results time after time.  Then try a month, and then a year.  In the meanwhile, while I don't mean to rub an alarmist's nose in it, wake me up when something, anything of true significance happens which is in line with your doomsday predictions.  I don't want to hear that all time record cold spells are due to global warming, too.  In other words, constantly shifting goal posts (which they have been) to the point where every unusual weather event is due to global warming climate change.

Per CNN - Antarctica's last 6 months were the coldest on record - Oct. 9, 2021

 

One other thing you might want to consider adding to the mix;  the unknown.  Don't thoughtlessly dismiss it.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, tgw said:

<snip>

 

maybe it's time to visit TOP CHAROEN.

555555555.   Good one.  I'll go tomorrow.  Promise.

 

BTW, I just replied rather thoroughly to Lacessit on global warming climate change.  Go ahead and feel free to comment if you like but I've been over this too many times and haven't had a single alarmist admit to a single point ever.  So, I'm a stupid climate change denier and shame on me and may I suffer damnation in hell with Greta Thunberg's grimaced visage eternally in my face and I don't care about pollution and the world we live in and the extinction of animals and species and I'm a really, really bad, despicable person piece of dirt.

 

So now that I've said my piece (in response to Lacessit) and I've said your piece (which you aren't actually able to say) I don't have anything else to add.  I haven't been able to move anyone (same as with getting anyone to admit that Darwin's theory of evolution is theory (belief) and not fact) so not wasting any more of my time or yours.

[tgw]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 So, I'm a stupid climate change denier

And there is your problem.

On what basis do you deny it? Do you have proof that there is no change in the climate?

 

I'm a climate change sceptic.

But my scepticism towards man-induced climate change has been declining in the face of the increasing supporting data.

 

[BritManToo]

30 minutes ago, tgw said:

On what basis do you deny it? Do you have proof that there is no change in the climate?

My evidence is that the people that own/run the world keep buying beachfront properties.

Combined with financial institutions still giving 30 year loans on them, and insurance companies still insuring them.

[tgw]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

My evidence is that the people that own/run the world keep buying beachfront properties.

Combined with financial institutions still giving 30 year loans on them, and insurance companies still insuring them.

please make your evidence available for peer review:

- list of transactions for coastal properties less than 20cm above sea level
- name of buyers and sellers
- a description of said persons' status within the group of "people that own/run the world"
- copy of transaction records, along with beneficial owner documentation where necessary
- copy of bank loans
- copy of insurance policies.

[BritManToo]

9 minutes ago, tgw said:

- list of transactions for coastal properties less than 20cm above sea level
- name of buyers and sellers

Bezos and Obamas new beachfront property purchases in Hawaii ($80M) have been well reported. If you look at the photos, a 10cm sea level rise would probably sink them.

(Let alone the 6' rise predicted by 2100, that would sink all of Florida)

 

I've also decided to put you on ignore.

I have little time for the climate/COVID nutters and tend to treat them with the same contempt as people knocking at my door asking if I've been saved, or others asking me if I understand the beauty of the Koran. You are welcome to live in your preferred fantasy world, but don't try to drag me in there with you.

Edited December 29, 2021 by BritManToo

[tgw]

16 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Bezos and Obamas new beachfront property purchases in Hawaii ($80M) have been well reported. If you look at the photos, a 10cm sea level rise would probably sink them.

...

I've also decided to put you on ignore.

well, that's no on both accounts, both properties are way higher than 10cm above sea level.
anyone who watched "Magnum" (the original) would know that.
maybe you aren't familiar with centimeters though - 10cm are a bit less than 4 inches.

 

too bad you (allegedly) won't be seeing me calling out your BS.

Edited December 29, 2021 by tgw

[ozimoron]

29 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

My evidence is that the people that own/run the world keep buying beachfront properties.

Combined with financial institutions still giving 30 year loans on them, and insurance companies still insuring them.

come on, you can't be that stupid. At least try to debate in good faith. The evidence for sea level rises is far more compelling yet you have evidently read none of it. Admit it.

Edited December 29, 2021 by ozimoron

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, tgw said:

And there is your problem.

On what basis do you deny it? Do you have proof that there is no change in the climate?

 

I'm a climate change sceptic.

But my scepticism towards man-induced climate change has been declining in the face of the increasing supporting data.

 

I don't have a problem.  I'm not running around with my hair on fire crying that the sky is falling when the weather is so lovely day in and day out.

 

On what basis?  First point:  who afforded you the luxury of being able to make unwarranted claims such that I'm a climate change denier?  Here's how this disingenuous tactic works.  Yes, it is a tactic.

 

Person 1:  When did you stop beating your wife?

Person 2:  WdaF are you on about?  I don't beat my wife.

Person 1:  So you're denying it?

 

Do you understand that you are employing the above tactic every time you call someone a climate change denier?  And do you understand that people don't like to be implied "wife beaters" via false claims?

 

Now, to answer your question re what basis.  How about the continual and utter dismal failure for any of the alarmists' predictions to come true.  Think of this analogy:  if you had an actual job which required you to produce results yet for years, nay decades, you failed to produce even the slightest result do you think you'd still have a job?  O.K., maybe not the best of analogies since in today's Superman Bizarro World of he's a she and she's a he it's incompetence, or any kind of backward thinking that gets rewarded.

 

Or try this analogy.  Perhaps this one will clear some of the mental blockages:  Ever hear of the fable of the boy who cried wolf?

 

Or, are you simply trying to convince me that . . . you just have to believe!  Fair warning:  You know the anti-superstition crowd here will eat you alive if they catch you extolling that line.

 

Man, I thought it was you folks who invoke Russell's teapot and now you're slyly turning the tables and expect me not to notice?  Ya know, we just had that argument on another topic, which I won't mention because it's a tad political.  My memory isn't so short.

 

So you used to be a skeptic and had a change of heart due to all of the "convincing" data.  Let me ask you . . . how trustworthy (reliable) do you figure the numbers to be?  And do you firmly believe in the incorruptibility of science?  Do you believe there's no money in science?  Or, scientists aren't human and therefore never lie?  Just checking on your gullibility level.

 

Ah, I couldn't resist temptation and replied anyway.  You see, when you have two immovable objects opposing each other then there's no place for the energy to flow to other than sarcasm.  No, that's not made up.  It's actual scientific proven theory.  I can't find the citation now but when I do I'll get you the link.

And finally, what happens now?  Well, someone will put up a clever reply putting me in my place and the entire contingent of opposing viewpointers will pile on with likes and thank-yous to prove that logic and reason don't stick to Teflon.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I don't have a problem.  I'm not running around with my hair on fire crying that the sky is falling when the weather is so lovely day in and day out.

 

On what basis?  First point:  who afforded you the luxury of being able to make unwarranted claims such that I'm a climate change denier?  Here's how this disingenuous tactic works.  Yes, it is a tactic.

 

Person 1:  When did you stop beating your wife?

Person 2:  WdaF are you on about?  I don't beat my wife.

Person 1:  So you're denying it?

 

Do you understand that you are employing the above tactic every time you call someone a climate change denier?  And do you understand that people don't like to be implied "wife beaters" via false claims?

 

Now, to answer your question re what basis.  How about the continual and utter dismal failure for any of the alarmists' predictions to come true.  Think of this analogy:  if you had an actual job which required you to produce results yet for years, nay decades, you failed to produce even the slightest result do you think you'd still have a job?  O.K., maybe not the best of analogies since in today's Superman Bizarro World of he's a she and she's a he it's incompetence, or any kind of backward thinking that gets rewarded.

 

Or try this analogy.  Perhaps this one will clear some of the mental blockages:  Ever hear of the fable of the boy who cried wolf?

 

Or, are you simply trying to convince me that . . . you just have to believe!  Fair warning:  You know the anti-superstition crowd here will eat you alive if they catch you extolling that line.

 

Man, I thought it was you folks who invoke Russell's teapot and now you're slyly turning the tables and expect me not to notice?  Ya know, we just had that argument on another topic, which I won't mention because it's a tad political.  My memory isn't so short.

 

So you used to be a skeptic and had a change of heart due to all of the "convincing" data.  Let me ask you . . . how trustworthy (reliable) do you figure the numbers to be?  And do you firmly believe in the incorruptibility of science?  Do you believe there's no money in science?  Or, scientists aren't human and therefore never lie?  Just checking on your gullibility level.

 

Ah, I couldn't resist temptation and replied anyway.  You see, when you have two immovable objects opposing each other then there's no place for the energy to flow to other than sarcasm.  No, that's not made up.  It's actual scientific proven theory.  I can't find the citation now but when I do I'll get you the link.

And finally, what happens now?  Well, someone will put up a clever reply putting me in my place and the entire contingent of opposing viewpointers will pile on with likes and thank-yous to prove that logic and reason don't stick to Teflon.

I'll admit not knowing that much about the technical aspects of climate change so I steer away from technical debates. I have seen trends where people say 1 There is no data showing climate change 2 There is but its natural 3 There is but its not the majority of scientists who think it's man made 4 The majority say they think it's man made but they are corrupted by money and other things. 

 

If I need something fixed at home that I don't understand I might research it a little bit so I don't get ripped off but I'll let the expert do the job. Same with climate change. I haven't got the time or inclination to delve into the realm of possibilities. It's my experience that individual  scientists can be flawed and even corrupted but that other scientists pick them up on it. In this area I'll take the view of the vast majority. This is not a reply to you as such but just to show how others aren't sheep for accepting the huge majority of opinions of the educated and able scientists who have done the hard work that I cannot. 

[seedy]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

This is not a reply to you as such but just to show how others aren't sheep for accepting the huge majority of opinions of the educated and able scientists who have done the hard work that I cannot. 

This is what informed and rational people do ...

Learn about the subject at hand, do some research, read opposing views, make up their minds.

Or admit they do not know and wait for more data to tip the balance.

 

[connda]

The nature of human inquiry which leads to advancements which work for the betterment of the human condition are good; The nature of human inquiry which leads to advancements which work for the detriments of the human condition are not good.

When science can not be separated from religious fervor and supports a pseudo-advancement which is propagandized as a 'betterment' but is little more than a conduit for greed and predatory exploitation?  That's bad too.  Science as politic is equally as bad.  Science which entertains only one 'accepted' narrative which can not be challenged in scientific debate is no longer science - it's religion.
 

Edited December 30, 2021 by connda

[BritManToo]

13 hours ago, ozimoron said:

come on, you can't be that stupid. At least try to debate in good faith. The evidence for sea level rises is far more compelling yet you have evidently read none of it. Admit it.

I'll admit I can't see any rise in sea levels over the past 60 years (I lived by the sea until I was 20).

So I have no reason to believe it will happen in the next 60 years.

 

Why is it all the alarmists predictions are always for 10-20 years in the future?

42 'top scientists' wrote to Nixon saying he had to do something about global COOLING!

 

Edited December 30, 2021 by BritManToo

[connda]

28 minutes ago, connda said:

The nature of human inquiry which leads to advancements which work for the betterment of the human condition are good; The nature of human inquiry which leads to advancements which work for the detriments of the human condition are not good.

When science can not be separated from religious fervor and supports a pseudo-advancement which is propagandized as a 'betterment' but is little more than a conduit for greed and predatory exploitation?  That's bad too.  Science as politic is equally as bad.  Science which entertains only one 'accepted' narrative which can not be challenged in scientific debate is no longer science - it's religion.
 

If you wish to see science as religion, then look no further than the self-proclaimed inquisitors who seek out the heretics from among the diverse opinions and counter-questions within a thread such as this, and then excoriates their views with pejoratives, name-calling, and calls for censorship and bans of their heretical thought and counter-arguments..
The Scientific Method does not work that way. 
However, when there are literally billions if not trillions of dollars in revenue and profits at stake - when there are fortunes to be made - suddenly the Scientific Method gets tossed to the wayside and replaced with a Scientism of Personality and Cult Devotion toward proclaimed 'experts' who have been anointed by the political class: That is the political classes in both government and within corporate and regulatory entities.  As I said above: "Science as politic is equally as bad."  And this so-called 'science' is based on political manipulation posing as scientific inquiry and research.  It's dangerous.

Scientism of Personality is the anti-thesis of the Scientific Method.

Edited December 30, 2021 by connda

[connda]

6 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'll admit I can't see any rise in sea levels over the past 60 years (I lived by the sea until I was 20).

So I have no reason to believe it will happen in the next 60 years.

 

Why is it all the alarmists predictions are always for 10-20 years in the future?

 

Al Gore and Barack Obama purchased their beach front property as a public service to mankind.  That way they can personally keep an eye on the rising sea levels around their own estates and warn the rest of us when the end is neigh.
These are amazingly philanthropists whose multi-million dollar beach-fronts estates will be underwater by 2030 - no doubt - and they sacrifice their beach-front estates as an object lesson to the common folk.  These men are truly saints.  God bless their souls.

[Hummin]

14 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'll admit I can't see any rise in sea levels over the past 60 years (I lived by the sea until I was 20).

So I have no reason to believe it will happen in the next 60 years.

 

Why is it all the alarmists predictions are always for 10-20 years in the future?

42 'top scientists' wrote to Nixon saying he had to do something about global COOLING!

 

Who is Tony Heller? 

 

There is a difference from reaching a no tun point where things escalade as an avalance, but that is a longer discussion. 

 

We all going to die sooner or later, so why worry? If I had kids, I would for sure worry for my kids, and my potential grand children, 

 

[seedy]

42 minutes ago, connda said:

The nature of human inquiry which leads to advancements which work for the betterment of the human condition are good; The nature of human inquiry which leads to advancements which work for the detriments of the human condition are not good.

Ah - the age old conundrum ...

Who decides what is Good ?

[seedy]

7 minutes ago, connda said:

Al Gore and Barack Obama purchased their beach front property as a public service to mankind. 

555 - 555

[connda]

1. Overall, has science and it's discoveries been beneficial for humanity?

I depends who you look at it.  For example, are weaponizing viruses and bacteria in a Biosafety BSL4 lab that have the potential to end life on this planet beneficial for humanity and advanced life forms in general?

My vote is "No" but then there are some psychopaths out there who think it's a grand idea and they get continual funding by 469 equally insane individuals to continue that research ad-infinitum - in my own humble opinion, of course.

[mikebike]

Ever notice that the most vocal critics of "science" are those who understand it the least?

[BritManToo]

Just now, mikebike said:

Ever notice that the most vocal critics of "science" are those who understand it the least?

Tell us about your degree in Science again?

[hotandsticky]

3 minutes ago, connda said:

1. Overall, has science and it's discoveries been beneficial for humanity?

I depends who you look at it.  For example, are weaponizing viruses and bacteria in a Biosafety BSL4 lab that have the potential to end life on this planet beneficial for humanity and advanced life forms in general?

My vote is "No" but then there are some psychopaths out there who think it's a grand idea and they get continual funding by 469 equally insane individuals to continue that research ad-infinitum - in my own humble opinion, of course.

 

 

I hope you never have/had a need for penicillin.

[hotandsticky]

Just now, BritManToo said:

Tell us about your degree in Science again?

 

 

You don't need a degree to see the blindingly obvious.

[connda]

1 minute ago, connda said:

1. Overall, has science and it's discoveries been beneficial for humanity?

I depends who you look at it.  For example, are weaponizing viruses and bacteria in a Biosafety BSL4 lab that have the potential to end life on this planet beneficial for humanity and advanced life forms in general?

My vote is "No" but then there are some psychopaths out there who think it's a grand idea and they get continual funding by 469 equally insane individuals to continue that research ad-infinitum - in my own humble opinion, of course.

And Mutually Assured Destruction of the entire planet with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet 100 times over.  Now, there's another simply grand scientific advancement.  And when your nuclear reactors get wiped out by a tidal-wave, well just pump the nuclear waste in the ocean.  It will dilute, so says 'science.'  <laughs> 

Personally I'm fully a proponent of fusion energy.  The Chinese will get there first and they and the fusion energy science will be demonized as soon as the Chinese reactors come online.
Back to science as politic I'm afraid.