Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the EPA gets a major reform

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    More Non-science and nonsense;
    March for Science draws smaller crowds than last year, but attendees are still passionate

    Crowds turned out in cities around the world Saturday for the second annual March for Science.

    Saturday's crowds were notably smaller than those that showed up for the first march in April 2017, but attendees expressed as much optimism and hope as they did last year.

    According to the non-partisan March for Science organization, the main event was set to take place in Washington, while more than 230 satellite events were scheduled around the world in different forms, be they marches, rallies or science exhibitions.
    ...
    Participants aimed to hold public officials accountable and push them to implement policy based on scientific evidence, according to the march's website.
    ...
    Mittleman, who works in science communications, told CNN she was advocating for "so many things!"

    The foremost issue for her was how the United States and the world are being impacted by climate change, and she wanted to see more action taken to fight it.

    "I also believe science education in school and beyond is vital to create future generations of scientists and develop innovative research and cure various diseases," Mittleman said. "Also to help with the communication of facts and research to help educate people that may not have the resources they need to understand science and its impact on everyone."
    ...
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ma...L&ocid=msnbcrd

    More REAL science education and this sort of oxy-moron would be reduced.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
      This is pretty much what I was driving at (or alluding to).
      IMO, ignorance (or disregard; or even dismissal) of the fact that cooling and warming cycles have always been a natural part of this planet's climate is a major hinge on the whole thing.
      I believe it is this very same ignorance/disregard/dismissal that is instrumental to the more extreme views regarding human-caused climate change.

      As I see it, there can of course be little doubt that human activity must have had, and must continue to be having, at least SOME influence on climate.
      The big question is, how much? IMHO, that question is very difficult to address with real certainty; in some areas at least.
      I guess the whole topic will continue to generate heated discussion.

      In consideration of all the above, I would say that we (that is, humanity) DO need to take climatic/environmental factors seriously and make every reasonable effort to minimize potential impacts.
      I guess there will always be differences of opinion on how much we need to do, and what, and where, and how the potential costs - where they exist - are to be managed.
      Some of the answers will not be easy.
      Part of the challenge is that the Pro-ACC/AGW faction is trying to advance a case for "Climate being broken by Humans therefore Humans should fix it"; when as you and I are trying to point out; it's not certain Climate is broken versus just doing it's natural thing. Obviously humans and our activities can have some affect upon environment and climate, but to what substance and extent is still to be determined, subject to much debate. Until what is detrimental is clearly established, would be premature and could do more harm than good to try and "fix" something we aren't yet sure on how it's "broken", or if it really is "broken".

      I recalling a line from a TV commercial of years ago, "It isn't right to fool Mother Nature." which could paraphrase; "It isn't right to fix Mother Nature (if you don't know if and how she is broken)".

      A case in point;
      Why is the global climatic cataclysm of the sixth century virtually unheard of?

      http://www.ancient-origins.net/unexp...sidebar-widget

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
        Part of the challenge is that the Pro-ACC/AGW faction is trying to advance a case for "Climate being broken by Humans therefore Humans should fix it"; when as you and I are trying to point out; it's not certain Climate is broken versus just doing it's natural thing. Obviously humans and our activities can have some affect upon environment and climate, but to what substance and extent is still to be determined, subject to much debate. Until what is detrimental is clearly established, would be premature and could do more harm than good to try and "fix" something we aren't yet sure on how it's "broken", or if it really is "broken".

        I recalling a line from a TV commercial of years ago, "It isn't right to fool Mother Nature." which could paraphrase; "It isn't right to fix Mother Nature (if you don't know if and how she is broken)".

        A case in point;
        Why is the global climatic cataclysm of the sixth century virtually unheard of?

        http://www.ancient-origins.net/unexp...sidebar-widget
        There is no certainty in science...

        Scientific theories are not mathematical theories in which humans create the math rules and use logic to prove mathematical propositions. Scientific theories are based on physical rules we try to discover and we use logic and experiments to constantly test our interpretation (theories) of how nature works . So, even though experimental results can disprove the validity of a theory (as for example when they produce results that contradict the predictions of a scientific theory) they can never prove that the scientific theory is 100% correct. Tis does not mean that all scientific theories have equal standing. Some have withstood more tests over time than others or their predictions have been corroborated by more numerous and diverse experiments. But even in such cases, there is always the possibility that such theories do not capture 100% the real picture of the universe. Still, science and civilization move forward based on such theories despite the lack of an absolute proof.
        Last edited by pamak; 16 Apr 18, 20:32.
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
          Part of the challenge is that the Pro-ACC/AGW faction is trying to advance a case for "Climate being broken by Humans therefore Humans should fix it"; when as you and I are trying to point out; it's not certain Climate is broken versus just doing it's natural thing. Obviously humans and our activities can have some affect upon environment and climate, but to what substance and extent is still to be determined, subject to much debate. Until what is detrimental is clearly established, would be premature and could do more harm than good to try and "fix" something we aren't yet sure on how it's "broken", or if it really is "broken".

          I recalling a line from a TV commercial of years ago, "It isn't right to fool Mother Nature." which could paraphrase; "It isn't right to fix Mother Nature (if you don't know if and how she is broken)".

          A case in point;
          Why is the global climatic cataclysm of the sixth century virtually unheard of?

          http://www.ancient-origins.net/unexp...sidebar-widget
          I wouldn't say it is broken; it follows cycles, some of which are not happy events for Humans.

          The problem we have is that we only have about 118 years of systematic, wide-spread hard data, and about three times that with patchy data.

          Which is akin to have about an hour of a multi-year cycle. We can extrapolate possible future events, but it tends to be heavy of guesswork.
          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
            I wouldn't say it is broken; it follows cycles, some of which are not happy events for Humans.

            The problem we have is that we only have about 118 years of systematic, wide-spread hard data, and about three times that with patchy data.

            Which is akin to have about an hour of a multi-year cycle. We can extrapolate possible future events, but it tends to be heavy of guesswork.
            It gets worse. There's stuff we're not even looking at. For example, before 9/11, jet contrails were not being studied as a potential source of climate change. Now they're just beginning to get serious study and it looks like they're potentially a bigger contributor than CO2...

            But, the fix for contrails is easy, doesn't hammer industries the Left considers evil, doesn't involve lots and lots of money, and wouldn't upend the world's economy. That makes it unappealing to the Left.

            Comment


            • #81
              From the FOUNDER of The Weather Channel

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUD...ature=youtu.be

              "Why is the Rum gone?"

              -Captain Jack

              Comment

              Latest Topics

              Collapse

              Working...
              X