I really get scared....

[BritManToo]

10 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The difference is by your own admission you never really enjoyed what you did. I might still be working as a scientist if age discrimination was not so rife in Australia. I loved working at a laboratory bench, finding new insights into processes.

OK, so what did you discover/invent that would have been of use to me?

Or was your entire life's work a pointless waste of time (as I suspect)?

Edited March 19, 2022 by BritManToo

[Sparktrader]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I am too old for the effects of climate change to have any impact on me personally.

Having said that, the stupidity of many in the human race is depressing in the way basic facts get shunted aside. I put climate deniers and Trump voters in the same basket.

What is a denier? That isnt science. Thats weak far left wing politics. Nothing scientific about calling people names.

 

If you have a theory prove it. If you cannot and just call people names it proves you have no science.

[Sparktrader]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

 

 

Edited March 19, 2022 by Sparktrader

[Hummin]

3 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Science is about facts not opinions. 5 + 2 = 7. Fact not opinion.

 

Only spin doctors claim consensus when talking science.

 

Climate science is mostly spin.

It was a response to your post where I commented most is comfortable not convinced. 

 

In my opinion, I do not need to be a scientist to understand that we abuse this planet, and there will be consequences!

 

I'm convinced we have an negative impact on the environment!

 

I'm shocked people can not see what we do to the nature, will kick back on us.

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, Doctor Tom said:

To some people, a lot of dedicated people, its not about money, its about the quality of the job, otherwise I for one would not have spent half my working life in the UK Military.  

UK military is one of the best gravy trains ........................ if you do it right.

One of my pals was a sniper 'spotter' in one of the middle east skirmishes, at age 23 he fell off a roof while taking a wee with no lights, damaged both his ankles just enough to have an excuse never to work again. Decent 'grace and favour' pension for the rest of his life, plus free accommodation forever if he wants to live in the UK.

Edited March 19, 2022 by BritManToo

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

It was a response to your post where I commented most is comfortable not convinced. 

 

In my opinion, I do not need to be a scientist to understand that we abuse this planet, and there will be consequences!

 

I'm convinced we have an negative impact on the environment!

 

I'm shocked people can not see what we do to the nature, will kick back on us.

Agreed. Humans do bad things. Doesnt mean that co2 is bad though. It is a trace element. 400 parts per million is tiny.

 

Pollution is one thing. Co2 politics is about money not pollution. Co2 is plant food. Pollution is toxic.

[Doctor Tom]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

UK military is one of the best gravy trains ........................ if you do it right.

Utter nonsense. 

[Lacessit]

Just now, BritManToo said:

What did you discover/invent that would have been of use to me?

I have one world patent ( expired ) that was very useful in saving my company millions of dollars a year in corrosion claims, most of which came from the automotive industry.

I also invented a test method which measured nonionic surfactant in wastewater with far greater accuracy than the test method listed in "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater", the bible of all water chemists. AFAIK it is still in use today.

I could go on, two examples are enough. I don't know if those are of use to you personally, but it is not all about you.

 

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, Sparktrader said:

Agreed. Humans do bad things. Doesnt mean that co2 is bad though. It is a trace element. 400 parts per million is tiny.

 

Pollution is one thing. Co2 politics is about money not pollution. Co2 is plant food. Pollution is toxic.

When it comes to CO2, I have to trust the majority of scientist's, 

 

[BritManToo]

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

When it comes to CO2, I have to trust the majority of scientist's, 

Yeah, don't trust any of those farmers adding CO2 to their greenhouses to get better crops.

Edited March 19, 2022 by BritManToo

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

When it comes to CO2, I have to trust the majority of scientist's, 

 

The majority said Pluto was a planet.

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Yeah, don't trust any of the farmers adding CO2 to their greenhouses to get better crops.

Farmers way better at rain predictions than scientists.

[Lacessit]

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

UK military is one of the best gravy trains ........................ if you do it right.

One of my pals was a sniper 'spotter' in one of the middle east skirmishes, at age 23 he fell off a roof while taking a wee with no lights, damaged both his ankles just enough to have an excuse never to work again. Decent 'grace and favour' pension for the rest of his life, plus free accommodation forever if he wants to live in the UK.

I am always amused by the fervent condemnation of socialism by Americans. They don't seem to realize the US military is one of the most socialist organizations on the planet.

 

[Doctor Tom]

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

The majority said Pluto was a planet.

It is, it was reclassified back to a planet some time ago,  Keep up mate 

[Sparktrader]

25 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

[Sparktrader]

3 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

It is, it was reclassified back to a planet some time ago,  Keep up mate 

When your parents were kids, Pluto was actually considered a planet. But 15 years ago, a group of scientists known as the International Astronomical Union voted to make the definition of “planets” more specific, and Pluto no longer made the cut. According to the IAU, Pluto is technically a “dwarf planet,” because it has not “cleared its neighboring region of other objects.” This means that Pluto still has lots of asteroids and other space rocks along its flight path, rather than having absorbed them over time, like the larger planets have done.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

7 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

UK military is one of the best gravy trains ........................ if you do it right.

One of my pals was a sniper 'spotter' in one of the middle east skirmishes, at age 23 he fell off a roof while taking a wee with no lights, damaged both his ankles just enough to have an excuse never to work again. Decent 'grace and favour' pension for the rest of his life, plus free accommodation forever if he wants to live in the UK.

I had a close friend who shocked us all when he joined the army at 17 when we were just thinking about girls and bands and such.

He eventually got into the SAS, I think, as he couldn't talk about it, but after 20 years service he retired, with a pension of about $50000 in the 90's increased by inflation. He had no wars to fight, and just did lots of fun stuff, if you are into that sort of thing. So he had the last laugh compared to my good self working till 59 or 60. 

[Hummin]

20 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

The majority said Pluto was a planet.

Come on ???? please,

 

We also burned witches based on science once.

 

I have given up environmental, religion and politics as subjects to discuss!

 

Waste of time, I'm just a passenger on this planet, and there is only one station for me! The end.

 

Edited March 19, 2022 by Hummin

[Sparktrader]

 

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.

The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

[Sparktrader]

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Come on ???? please,

 

We also burned witches based on science once.

 

I have given up environmental, religion and politics as subjects to discuss!

 

Waste of time, I'm just a passenger on this planet, and there is only on station for me! The end.

 

Witches was based on voodoo stuff not science.

 

Science is provable facts only.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

21 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

The point of consensus isn't to say that it is perfect or that there could not be a new scientist come along and upend previously held beliefs. The new scientist just needs proof. Consensus of scientists is surely the most likely to be correct except where the consensus leads to complacency, a barrier to new ideas, or if there is corruption. I think that is rare but others may have a different opinion.

Michael Crichton wrote some really good books. Not just Jurassic Park of course.  

Edited March 19, 2022 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Rampant Rabbit]

1 hour ago, Sparktrader said:

Science is about facts not opinions. 5 + 2 = 7. Fact not opinion.

 

Only spin doctors claim consensus when talking science.

 

Climate science is mostly spin.

 

[Sparktrader]

26 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

The point of consensus isn't to say that it is perfect or that there could not be a new scientist come along and upend previously held beliefs. The new scientist just needs proof. Consensus of scientists is surely the most likely to be correct except where the consensus leads to complacency, a barrier to new ideas, or if there is corruption. I think that is rare but others may have a different opinion.

Michael Crichton wrote some really good books. Not just Jurassic Park of course.  

Consensus is wrong most of the time. Economics, business, sport etc.

 

Wrong 70% of the time pretty much. Look at economic forecasts. 

 

So why would you go with the majority?

 

Look at the facts. Ignore the noise.

[ColeBOzbourne]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

So why do they earn a fraction of a stock traders wage?

I trained as a scientist, and found I could earn far more as a high school teacher, with 10 weeks holiday a year.

Then I found I could earn far more than a high school teacher working in the city

Intelligence is not measured by amount earned. Some people do a job simply because they enjoy it. 

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, Sparktrader said:

Witches was based on voodoo stuff not science.

 

Science is provable facts only.

Doesn't matter, it was that time proved science! 

 

If you see Life of Brian, easier to understand science before and now!

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

OK, so what did you discover/invent that would have been of use to me?

Or was your entire life's work a pointless waste of time (as I suspect)?

The second sentence was added subsequent to my response to the first sentence.

As the work I did for the last organization I worked for, as an employee and consultant, is still in use today, 20-40 years later, I'd say it was not a pointless waste of time.

By your own admission, you detested your work and was only in it for the money. Probably thought of it as pointless too.

Just because that is your attitude to your work and life, you should not assume others think the same way.

Do you have anything in your life to be proud of?  Something for which people will remember you kindly after you've gone? I suspect that's the difference between us.

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

The point of consensus isn't to say that it is perfect or that there could not be a new scientist come along and upend previously held beliefs. The new scientist just needs proof. Consensus of scientists is surely the most likely to be correct except where the consensus leads to complacency, a barrier to new ideas, or if there is corruption. I think that is rare but others may have a different opinion.

Michael Crichton wrote some really good books. Not just Jurassic Park of course.  

The penalties for plagiarism and data falsification in science are quite onerous, and have ruined more than a few careers.

Science most commonly gets corrupted when politicians start telling people what they think they want to hear, in preference to what they should hear. Of course, that has nothing to do with their standing in the polls.

While Michael Crichton is an entertaining writer, it is quite laughable to cite his contrarian views on science as an authoritative link.

[StreetCowboy]

4 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

Science is about facts not opinions. 5 + 2 = 7. Fact not opinion.

 

Only spin doctors claim consensus when talking science.

 

Climate science is mostly spin.

The fundamental principle of The War On Truth is not that other people are wrong, or lying, and I am right, or honest.  The fundamental principle is that although I am lying, so is everyone else, and that you cannot believe anything other than what you would like to believe, with complete disregard for facts or evidence.  That is the post-truth philosophy that Putin and his Western rented sock-puppets are pushing.

[Sparktrader]

13 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

The fundamental principle of The War On Truth is not that other people are wrong, or lying, and I am right, or honest.  The fundamental principle is that although I am lying, so is everyone else, and that you cannot believe anything other than what you would like to believe, with complete disregard for facts or evidence.  That is the post-truth philosophy that Putin and his Western rented sock-puppets are pushing.

What are you on about? The cc movement has nothing to do with Putin.

[Sparktrader]

57 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The penalties for plagiarism and data falsification in science are quite onerous, and have ruined more than a few careers.

Science most commonly gets corrupted when politicians start telling people what they think they want to hear, in preference to what they should hear. Of course, that has nothing to do with their standing in the polls.

While Michael Crichton is an entertaining writer, it is quite laughable to cite his contrarian views on science as an authoritative link.

Science isnt about opposing views. It's not politics. Science is about facts.

 

It's laughable to talk about science and consensus when consensus is not science.

 

If you don't know the difference between facts and opinions don't pretend to know anything about science.