this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2304 readers
8 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If they're too dumb to form a proper sentence, why should I listen to them on more complicated matters? Or should we assume they're not idiots and they know exactly what they are saying?
Lots of room for error. Look up the "reproducibility crisis in science".
On the basis of them saying it's unlikely to happen... but there's a chance! (jimcarreydumbdumber.jpg)
"possibility", "probability is highly uncertain", "medium confidence is not reassuring", "fully plays out in the next"...
Tell me, why do you believe them without reflecting on what they're saying critically?
Science worship and liberal buzzwords? On my leftist forum? It's more likely than you think!
(btw, I have a masters degree in Philsophy of Science, you can't assume that everyone who is skeptical of a claim does so from ignorance)
I'm not denying climate change, I'm denying that liberal scientists writing the paper are writing it out of altruism and genuine concern rather than personal politics/gain. I'm a cynic, if anything.
You're really showing your ass here
So scientists shouldn't warn public officials of catastrophic events just because there is a chance they might not happen?
Bro is OK with us playing Russian roulette with the biosphere.
Because I have seen models and reports myself. Not necessarily the ones produced by these exact people (I don't remember the names), but I have read many reports of a possible AMOC collapse.
Furthermore, this kind of phrasing is exactly the kind of phrasing I use in my scientific reports regardless of how confident I am in my results because this kind of phrasing is how we are taught to write about science. This kind of "safe" wording is default because scientists aren't writers or philosophers and communicating to laymen is hard.
Attacking people's sincerity and goodwill based on prejudices (and increadibly flimsy ones at that) is cynicism, I know. And this kind of cynicism is lazy and deeply idealistic.
Should they write an "open letter" for every single catastrophic event that might happen?
Open letter to the ministers of the world: Are you doing enough against the possible zombie threat?!
Amazing argument, liberals should just hold the world hostage until we do as they say... speaking of which, what solutions do the climate scientists propose? It's gonna be more "goals" that no country will achieve (except the Cubans). Funny how Western media didn't sing praises for Cuba for reaching all the agreed upon goals. It's almost as if it's not about the environment at all!
http://arxiv.org/list/astro-ph.CO/new
"We measured...", "We analysed...", " We derived..."
Funny, cause I was taught that scientific papers and reports are written in the first person singular or plural.
You can make the argument that this "open letter" is for laymen. But 1) these are government ministers, you'd expect them to know a bit more than the average layman, 2) based on their rhetoric, the letter is meant to persuade rather than inform, there is a difference.
Prejudices? It's not prejudice, people doing things out of self-interest is a fact of life. As communists we think the working class should take power because that is in the interest of working class people, not because it is the "right" thing or the "moral" thing to do. The capitalist does capitalist things not because they're a moustache-twirling cartoon villain, but because it is in their interest to do so.
It is analytical philosophy beloved by the liberals that claims humans can do things "objectively", but Marxist philosophy and continental philosophy in general recognises that every human acts and perceives subjectively. You cannot separate personal motivations from the things that people do. This is how you get people do commit atrocities -- "I don't want to do this, but I have to do this".
Yes
This is why you come off like a climate change denier. Are you actually insinuating that the collapse of the AMOC is as unlikely as a zombie outbreak?
Because the report actually states that the IPCC category of "medium confidence" is applied to the prediction the AMOC won't collapse in this century. And the open letter is published because the scientists believe that the IPCC has underestimated the risks.
Funny you say that since China is the one country in the world doing the most to keep warming below 2 C. Their work on developing renewable is why we even have a chance of succeeding, while the liberal countries dropped the ball big time.
How is first person or third person relevant?
For a cynic, you overestimate government ministers quite highly.
It is not. In fact, the idea that everyone acts in naked self interest all the time is a liberal delusion. Are you going to tell me that all of the communists who sacrificed their lives to create the PRC and USSR did so out of selfishness?
No, it's just as likely. It was to illustrate a point that there's many "possible catastrophes" waiting for us and governments should be prepared for all of them. But writing sensationalist articles predicting the end of the world is not how it's done. They want to increase anxiety, so people become scared and start making dumb decisions, like mob mentality. The downvotes on my post prove my point. People are confused and scared and are going to do whatever the closest perceived authority tells them.
Yes, exactly. Regular doomsday predictions aren't bringing in the money they used to, gotta turn it up to 11. My favourite part is how they say that it can collapse this century, but it won't be apparent until the next century (when conveniently all the undersigned scientists will be dead).
Without writing a single open letter?! I don't believe it.
You're making it sound like the only motivation a country can have for switching to renewables+nuclear is "to save the environment" (or some other slogan), but consider this: renewables decrease the amount of CO and CO2 in the air, China has problems with air quality; renewables and nuclear reduce dependence on oil trade, increasing self-suffiency and protecting from sudden price increases of oil, etc. China is also producing the most coal plants in the world too. You shouldn't assume just because someone does what you'd do that they're motivated by the same things.
"We" or "I" is a personal pronoun that refers to a group of people or person. Saying "Science confirms..." is giving agency to something that exists only in the abstract ans therefore cannot confirm or deny. They didn't write "Scientists from this and that university confirmed..."
Why else? They certainly didn't do it so that someone would praise them online for it a hundred years later. Also, most people don't do things thinking they will certainly die, they do them regardless of the possibility of death. And yes, they did it to make a better life for themselves, their families, their friends, community and children.
For example, I pick up garbage on the street where I live out of purely selfish reasons, not for the environment, not because I hate littering, not because I want to make the world a better place, but because I love there and I don't want the place I live to be littered with garbage, it looks bad.
If everyone started looking out for their actual interests and started acting selfishly, we'd have full communism in a week. We don't have communism precisely because people are convinced to act against their own interest by ideology.
The biosphere has literally billions of tons of carbon already. Limiting excess carbon is not a bad idea, especially when it throws the whole system into balance.
Nearly no scientists are making doomsday predictions either, and that's a bad thing. Even most scientists tend to underestimate the present danger of the current situation.
How do you not see that:
Is just point blank climate change denial?
You misunderstood. I mentioned the zombie outbreak as one of the possible things that could happen in relation to asking if scientists should write an open letter about every possible disaster. Obviously climate collapse is more likely, but what about asteroid impacts? Why aren't we building preventative measures against that?
Honestly, the most likely thing to cause mass death and civlisational collapse is 1) nuclear war, ironically supported by the same liberals who talk about global warming, IPCC, etc. 2) a deadly virus that develops in the cramped conditions global capitalism forces people to live in.
It's not. Zombies are fictional. There's a zero percent chance of a zombie outbreak. And you are saying a major environmental change is just as likely.
...there is also scientific attention on this, and there are in fact preventative measures being planned.
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-confirms-dart-mission-impact-changed-asteroids-motion-in-space/
To be fair, there's a non-zero chance of a CJD outbreak, and same for wasting disease that originates from deer. If or when they cross over to humans, it's going to be nasty.