Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[Copernicus]

Pure science doesn't collect a paycheck.

Scientists don't draw salaries? That must be news to them and those who sign the paychecks. You really don't understand why people value theoretical science, do you? Apparently, there is value in learning the truth about how nature works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Retarded arguments don't make me angry, they bore me.

Wait . . . you bore yourself?

 

[Ebionite]

This is an absurd comment, and I notice you offer no evidence or detailed explanation. It’s as if you are bluffing, so im not convinced.

The reason why is humanism - to err is human. Humanism got it's name in Rome, which connects functionally to the U.N. via the Treaty of Rome. Humanism denies the intangibles of nature, and errors of this scale lead to ruin.

 

[Ebionite]

Scientists don't draw salaries?

Pure science is the method, not the man.

 

[Copernicus]

People who like arguments that are supported by facts.

Apparently, that doesn't include you, because your comment did not address the argument we were having about anthropogenic warming.

 

[Copernicus]

Pure science is the method, not the man.

Straw man. Science is the method. "Pure science" is what theoretical scientists do, and they do draw salaries to conduct their research in very expensive facilities.

 

[Ebionite]

Apparently, that doesn't include you, because your comment did not address the argument we were having about anthropogenic warming.

Arguing the technical details is pointless when the elephant in the room is the error of humanism. The salaries of your scientists are a consequence of that error.

 

[Ebionite]

Straw man. Science is the method. "Pure science" is what theoretical scientists do, and they do draw salaries to conduct their research in very expensive facilities.

No, you don't get to redefine pure to mean theoretical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you don't get to redefine pure to mean theoretical.

Nor do you.

 

[Copernicus]

Arguing the technical details is pointless when the elephant in the room is the error of humanism. The salaries of your scientists are a consequence of that error.

The error in the room is your inability to mount a logical defense of your claims. It isn't humanists who pay the salaries of research scientists.

No, you don't get to redefine pure to mean theoretical.

I didn't. Everyone knows that "pure science" refers to theoretical research. What it means is that those doing the work do not consider practical applications of the theory they are developing. If it didn't have value to people, then no one would bother paying for it, but I think you've already indicated that you wouldn't pay for it, even though you get to enjoy its benefits.

See, for example:

STUDY APPLIED AND PURE SCIENCES IN THE USA​

Applied Sciences takes a scientific approach to nature - think engineering and technology. Pure Sciences on the other hand is more experimental and focuses on uncovering the secrets of nature through lab work.​

Pure Science and Applied Science explained​

Pure Science is the development of scientific theories and predictions in three broad subjects: Chemistry, Biology or Physics. Also known as ‘Basic Science’ or ‘Natural Science’, Pure Science is research which doesn’t consider how these theories can be applied but is used to answer questions or phenomena. Pure Sciences usually take place in a laboratory setting.​

 

[Ebionite]

The error in the room is your inability to mount a logical defense of your claims.

I defended it when I pointed out that you were attempting to redefine terms.

I didn't

But you did. Pure means uncorrupted, not theoretical with a salary attached.

"Pure science" is what theoretical scientists do, and they do draw salaries to conduct their research in very expensive facilities.

Everyone knows

No, you're not omniscient, either.

Alleged Certainty

Asserting a conclusion without evidence or premises, through a statement that makes the conclusion appear certain when, in fact, it is not.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

 

[Copernicus]

I defended it when I pointed out that you were attempting to redefine terms.

But you did. Pure means uncorrupted, not theoretical with a salary attached.

Sorry, but I didn't redefine anything. I merely explained to you how people use the term "pure science". Unlike you, I provided evidence of usage to back up my explanation.

Everyone knows​

No, you're not omniscient, either.

I didn't claim to be. All I did was explain the usage of a common expression. Why don't you get back to telling us why you think climate change either isn't happening, or, if it is, why you think it isn't caused being driven by anthropogenic carbon pollution? Or one of the other of Mann's six categories of climate science denial that you want to pursue?

 

[Ebionite]

Sorry, but I didn't redefine anything. I merely explained to you how people use the term "pure science". Unlike you, I provided evidence of usage to back up my explanation.

Your denial is worthless. Drawing a salary is not part of the scientific method.

I didn't claim to be.

It's implied. You couldn't know what everyone knows without being omniscient.

 

[Copernicus]

Your denial is worthless. Drawing a salary is not part of the scientific method.

Straw man. I never said it was. I said science was the "method". "Pure science" just describes a type of scientific activity.

It's implied. You couldn't know what everyone knows without being omniscient.

Do I have to explain the casual usage of "everyone knows" to you also? You are really logic chopping hard on this one. Why don't you take a rest and address the thread topic?

 

[Ebionite]

Straw man.

No, the scientific method is essential to science. Adding the element of remuneration corrupts it because the remuneration can have a political agenda attached to it.

"Pure science" just describes a type of scientific activity.

In the context of state funding it means political bias.

Do I have to explain the casual usage of "everyone knows" to you also?

It's your fallacy.

Why don't you take a rest and address the thread topic?

Like the political agenda that is attached to funding of scientific research which imposes a tyranny of error, you mean?

 

[Copernicus]

No, the scientific method is essential to science. Adding the element of remuneration corrupts it because the remuneration can have a political agenda attached to it.

So, scientists should work for free? Perhaps they should live in monasteries and pledge celibacy, too.

In the context of state funding it means political bias.

So, now soldiers should work for free? Who pays your salary?

Why don't you take a rest and address the thread topic?​

Like the political agenda that is attached to funding of scientific research which imposes a tyranny of error, you mean?

Unlike the research sponsored by the fossil fuel industry? You really need to rethink this line of reasoning. You accuse others of committing fallacies, but you fall effortlessly for a genetic fallacy, don't you?

The way the scientific method works is that it corrects its errors. All scientists have to earn a living, same as everyone else. Just because they are all paid, that does not mean that their results are false. When bad science happens, it gets rooted out. The problem with AGW is that it has been consistently corroborated by the work of many scientists, and those who seek to point out its "errors" have failed to convince other scientists that their arguments have merit. Science is inherently a crowdsourced methodology.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Arguing the technical details is pointless when the elephant in the room is the error of humanism. The salaries of your scientists are a consequence of that error.

Whenever I see a comment like this alleging some defect in the thinking of those challenging the claims of fanciful thinkers, I make the same comment. If you want to call some aspect of humanism an error and that word is to have some meaning other than an effort to denigrate dissenters and undermine their position without an argument (ad hominem fallacy), then one needs to show some cost associated with the behavior to call it an error. I already know that you can't do that, so I won't ask you to try. Paying professional scientists is neither an error nor a result of humanism. I assure you that the people that mean you and I harm are just as anxious to get that new science if not more so and are willing to fund science for the purpose of subjugating humanity.

The faithful are continually calling those challenging their fanciful thinking myopic or engaging in scientism (meant disparagingly), implying that they are small thinkers missing out on something of value, but reliably fail to produce anything of value for their efforts as evidence. I routinely make this comment to all of them to demonstrate the vacuity of the claim.

Regarding humanism, if mankind saves itself from itself, it will be because of the ascension of humanist values and the subjugation of the "theologies of despair and ideologies of violence" that humanism directly opposes, and why those ideologies oppose humanism. Isn't your religion where you learned to think like that?

No, the scientific method is essential to science. Adding the element of remuneration corrupts it because the remuneration can have a political agenda attached to it.

Show your argument that not paying scientists produces more useful science than paying them. Or did you mean something else by corrupting science? Then either extend that argument to all others who take a paycheck and show how paying teachers, for example, corrupts the profession. It's not sufficient to show a few cases of teachers corrupted by being professionals rather than volunteers.

Paying salaries to judges, for example, doesn't corrupt them. Bribes do. Paying salaries to physicians doesn't corrupt the profession. Direct payment from insurers to self-employed physicians offers an opportunity for fraudulent billing, but a paycheck for working for an HMO doesn't.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I was a development engineer and the data I supplied gave me a idea for a solution, that is not political postering, but is very practical.

Africa is the largest source of natural CO2 by forest fires; Africa is the Continent of Fire. Africa's natural contribution to total global CO2 is huge. What would happen if we invested in Africa, to develop ways to reduce African forest fires? Conceptually we could reduce trillions of tons of CO2, without having to knee cap the world economies. Instead of going after man made CO2, which affects the world economy, we go after an easy natural source.

There is plenty of forest fire CO2, that can be controlled by better land management and other technologies, thereby not needing as much immediate CO2 change in the global infrastructure by depending exclusively on manmade CO2 control. This African CO2 offset could allow time for R&D to develop alternate energy,, without cutting off the nose of the economy to spite its face. CO2 is CO2 and why not go after the CO2 that hurts humans the least, instead of the CO2 that will cause the most economic hardship?

Plus the economic investment in Africa would help that continent develop and expand the world economy. It will give international incentive to invest. The 22.5 Trillion tons of CO2 from world wide forest fires, means lots of potential offset savings, since natural and manmade is all part of the same CO2 global atmospheric pool.

This will also be a good litmus test to factor out a power grab scam. A power grab scam will not want this. Plus this approach brings hope and not just fear of climate change plus world poverty.

One other thought is, say we could control African wild fires. This could be used like a CO2 dam, that could be used in the future if we heeded into an ice age. We let off natural CO2, from the dam, to stay warmer.

It all makes perfect sense, tho you're assuming that we already got warming from CO2. Once again that all very well may be true but personally I'm having a hard time finding believable numbers to back that up.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It all makes perfect sense, tho you're assuming that we already got warming from CO2. Once again that all very well may be true but personally I'm having a hard time finding believable numbers to back that up.

Do you mean that you can't find the data, don't believe it, don't agree that it supports the idea of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), or something else?

Ask yourself what the data would look like if AGW were the case, and CO2 was a major contributor, and why you think that what you have doesn't fill that bill. Do you agree that a natural greenhouse effect can occur if gases like CO2, CH4 and H2O accumulate in the atmosphere? Do you agree that CO2 ppm counts have been increasing since the industrial revolution began in earnest? Do you agree that things like glacial melting, worsening extreme weather including record high atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, rising sea level, and coral blanching are consistent with global warming?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Mann leapt from relative obscurity to international fame with his “hockey stick”, a graph of global temperatures from 1000 AD to the present, which was the showpiece at the iv launching of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report in Shanghai in January 2001. The hockey stick became a corporate logo for the IPCC , but because it rubbed out the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from the historical record, it was subjected to a US congressional inquiry. Eventually it was shown that random data fed into the algorithms used by Mann to produce his hockey stick from bristle cone pine tree ring data, also yielded hockey stick results.

https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

Through his position, Connolley for years kept dissenting views on global warming out of Wikipedia, allowing only those that promoted the view that global warming represented a threat to mankind. As a result, Wikipedia became a leading source of global warming propaganda, with Connolley its chief propagandist.

Climate ‘Propagandist’ Banned by Wikipedia | National Review

Remember William Connolley? Team Green’s point man at Wikipedia has censored his last climate-science entry. Lawrence Solomon — who wrote about Connolley for NRO back in 2008 — does a victory lap i…

www.nationalreview.com

To be clear, there is absolutely no allegation of research fraud or misconduct here, just simple disagreement. Instead of countering arguments and evidence via the peer reviewed literature, activist scientists teamed up with activist journalists to pressure a publisher – Springer Nature, perhaps the world’s most important scientific publisher – to retract a paper. Sadly, the pressure campaign worked.

"Think of the Implications of Publishing"

A whistleblower shares shocking details of corruption of peer review in climate science

rogerpielkejr.substack.com

These are long-ago debunked conspiracy theories.