slug.com slug.com
5 4

Academia explained

KeVince 8 Feb 21
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

True.

“It is not titles that honour men, but men that honour titles.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli

1

This is what our "Education System" is doing to our youth!!!!!!
And we are letting them!!!!!

Serg97 Level 8 Feb 21, 2023
1

Strict adherence to the orthodoxy of established "climate science" will always find acceptance as a "peer reviewed" study and conclusion. The question therefore becomes who and what qualifies a particular field of study a "peer group". IMHO a group of "scientists" who all agree on any particular field of study and its conclusions qualify as a "peer group" regardless the legitimacy of the subject of the study itself and its hard conclusiveness. I mean suppose a particular group of highly credentialed "scientists" agree that "big bang" theory is in fact the origin of all things and that creationism is utter nonsense.That particular group would comprise a "peer group" regardless how they arrived at their conclusion on the subject.
Orthodoxy is antithetical to science IMHO. "Harvard credentials" notwithstanding.

iThink Level 9 Feb 21, 2023

Everything about life revolves around some level of reproductive fidelity and beneficial mutations. Conservatism insists on too much reproductive fidelity and liberalism creates too many deleterious mutations. As you and others here have pointed out it's ironic how "conservative" liberals become when they are in power.

Without some level of "orthodoxy" you spend too much time chasing down rabbit holes. Too much and you perpetuate error. It's a question of balance.

Nobody likes uncertainty. Einstein resisted some aspects of quantum uncertainty. In some ways however he was a scientific rebel. To finalize relativity even he had to rely on experts with better math skills and geniuses such as Neils Bohr.

Scientists confuse determinism with absolutism. In reality since their main tools are language tools such as mathematics their work is abstract. No abstraction can be an absolute reflection of physical reality. Theories are when they work close approximations. The question is never if something is absolutely "true" but if it is close enough. Close enough always implies purpose and purpose is always subjective. The question then becomes close enough for what purpose and does that purpose involve subjectivity. The answer is of course it will almost always have some level of subjectivity reflecting the abstract purpose.

The problem with climate science is it has become too "conservative". It's main goal has become to prove the preassigned subjective purpose it serves absolutely. It's a philosophical error directly descendant from absolutism. The other side is just as bad because it's subjective purpose is to maintain it's own form of absolutism.

Three things humans cannot comprehend are infinity, zero and randomness. The same is true of scientists. Steeped in determinism they cannot comprehend that randomness is the source of life. Perhaps the universe itself. When they confront complex chaotic systems they return to reductionism. They try to reduce systems to their components. In this way climate scientist have removed climate from the other systems it operates in. Systems they have very little knowledge about such as society. If the experts would stick to their areas of expertise we would be better off. But we live in an age where activism is the main moral standard. If you are not an activist regardless of your expertise you are a sinner. If you are on the other side then subjective conservative values are absolute. It's a recipe for disaster.

@wolfhnd You are a very smart person. You possess authoritative knowledge and you write it out in a very cohesive and coherent way. Of course I do grasp the necessity of "orthodoxy" to a certain degree but that orthodoxy must be founded upon scientific method. If the data input is subjective the the study is skewed accordingly.
Only a fool would argue that with an industrialized human population of somewhere between 7billion and 8billion we have zero impact on the natural cycles of the globe. Of course we should be faithful stewards of the natural resources - water, air, soil...
But the "climate change" zealots so grossly overstate their position on the matter that it has crossed a threshold of merit - believability.
There is clearly a vested interest in the alarmist approach to climate stewardship. Its as though the more their claims are exaggerated and terrifying (if taken seriously) the more "virtuous cred" they attain.
Then of course there is the money aspect of that particular field science. The more extreme their predictions about climate disaster means that the public funding (tax dollars) will keep flowing and increasing ever larger. There is clearly a partnership established between the Politicians and the Climate Science business. They share a symbiosis. The politicians get more and more powers (while the people lose more and more autonomy) and the climate science business gets a wide open spigot of money perpetually flowing into their greedy grimy hands.
BTW - all of the chemical, and elemental particulate spewed into the atmosphere and the water notwithstanding do you think of CO2 as a pollutant?

@iThink CO2 is the precursor to the Oxygen we need to breathe to stay alive. There was no Oxygen before plants happened 4 billion years ago. And plants could not happen until there was enough CO2 from volcanos.

Pre-industrial CO2 was at its lowest point in Earth’s history, except before plants. If not for humans raising the amount of CO2 slightly, plants might already be disappearing.

So no, CO2 is not a pollutant. Without it, we die.

@iThink

No I do not think of co2 as a pollutant.

The question is what is the ideal amount of co2 in the atmosphere. From a geological perspective co2 levels have been higher in the past and life thrived. The smarter alarmists know this and do not refer to anthropogenic co2 as a threat to life itself. Just as the smarter deniers do not deny that anthropogenic co2 will cause warming.

It comes down to a question of risk management but activists don't actually think that way. Risk management has to be calculated in monetary terms. It is the only way to be as objective as possible. That means assigning a value to human life and suffering. Activists and for that matter the general population reject assigning relative values to human life. Like many religious people they think money is "dirty", unnatural, arbitrary, corrupting and dehumanizing. For most people their is nothing more precious than human life especially their own, followed by children, etc. etc.

To alarmist there are no benefits from warming. Life just doesn't work that way. There will be winners and losers. For example with sea level rise a disproportionate percent of people will be displaced because most people live near a coast. At the same time Northern latitudes may become more inhabitable, with longer growing seasons. A lot depends on the speed of the change. If it happens faster than the natural decay of infrastructure it would be economically devastating.

All I actually know is that it does appear the earth is warming in response to anthropogenic co2. That the alarmists have been caught on multiple occasions lying concerning the speed of that increase, that it makes little difference what we do if China, India and Russia don't reciprocate, co2 is currently approaching saturation levels, the time scales involved are beyond what can be planned for, that short term cooling is a known historical threat, and unless the experts stop massaging the statistics we won't know or be able to plan rationally.

I apologize for going on and on but this topic is the one that drives me insane the most.  How can an ordinary person have an opinion about something so complicated when they can't trust the experts.  And I emphatically do not trust activists.  Anyone trained in and working with applied science will have learned at some point to not trust the latest and greatest idea.  I have seen the bandwagon effect completely distort the normally rational workings of professionals on many occasions.

 It's human nature to associate morality with activism.  To demand virtue signaling.  I see it in the religious as well as the current cult of environmentalism.  If you are not promoting your religion through virtue signaling the newly converted will see you as a sinner.  

Global Warming as far as I know could be a pending disaster.  We know that the climate is unstable but at the same time we also know that forcing tends to need an over-correction to be reversed.  The history of the planet's climate shows wild swings related to poorly understood forcing mechanisms.  The possibility of runaway warming from feedback mechanisms clearly exists.   Devastating short term cooling is a certainty however.  

The problem with cults is they almost always have some element of misanthropy.  Human well being and happiness are always secondary to whatever drives them.  Perhaps the most poignant example is cults such as the Jimmy Jones adventure in Guyana.  To be saved you have to kill yourself literally or figuratively.  A bit of that is going on in the environmentalism cult.  Adaptation is always a sin for a cultist because it by its nature requires compromise and a bending of "principles".  We see that in all political "cults" and sport fanatics.  

We don't need science to know the greatest current threat to people in terms of weather is short term cooling.  All we need is to look at history.  Yet no environmental cultist will even admit the possibility.  The existing food supply is on the order of months not years.  A "year without a summer" as the result of a volcanic eruption or some other natural unforeseen event would at the very least be economically and politically destabilizing if not cause massive starvation.  Global Warming is just one of the things that we need to plan for but that assumes that their are planners who can resist the natural human tendency to focus too narrowly.  We tend to focus on what is in front of us because we are not good at dealing with complex, chaotic systems.

We need to prioritize and stop jumping on bandwagons, stop being cultists.  The greatest threat we face at the moment is cultism.  There is a negative feedback mechanism at work here also.  There is a problem, people focus on it to the exclusion of everything else, other people have other priorities, and cults multiply with the attendant social chaos.  It's that chaos that is the greatest threat to civilization.  Our current elites love chaos, I offer George Soros as an example but he is the extreme example.  When others say you have to take advantage of a crisis, and the crisis is not really being addressed in favor of the goals of the cult, you know you are in trouble and the gods of chaos are in control.                     

@TimTuolomne Yes I know this - I just wanted to know if someone else considered co2 to be a "pollutant" or not in order to know where they are coming from with their argumentation.
Thanks for your input too

3

Peer reviewed today means my friends all agree with me.

Peer review is becoming useless

3

"You can always tell a Harvard man. You just can't tell him much."

There are two kinds of people. Those who respect others and those who don't.

Some academics can actually have an open mind. But the more they come from Marxist universities, the least likely they are to be among them.

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 12

Photos 11,776 More

Posted by JohnHoukVideo Collection of Tyranny Past, Present & Future SUMMARY: This is a collection of seven videos that are in a random date order showing my interest… Tyranny is the theme.

Posted by GeeMacMexico admits it is a hotbed of drug trafficking, but not of drug use, according to its top politician.

Posted by JohnHoukReprising ShadowGate Documentaries: With Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukLest YOU Are Brainwashed to be Happy in an Age of Transformation Tyranny: Videos & Commentary to Refresh YOUR Memory to at Least Awaken Personal Resistance! SUMMARY: An examination of saved videos...

Posted by Weltansichtwell....doggies

Posted by MosheBenIssacMetoo in action

Posted by JohnHoukDr.

Posted by JohnHoukConnecting the Dots! Some AI Truth – What Used to be “Playing God” is Really “Playing Devil” SUMMARY: … Satan – the foe – has only one delusional recourse: Brainwash human souls ...

Posted by JohnHoukMy Intro to Documentary, ‘Let My People Go’ SUMMARY: Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukMedical Tyranny – A Look at mRNA Danger & COVID Bioweapon Exploitation SUMMARY: Medical Tyranny has become a fact of life that the brainwashing Dem-Marxists, RINOs and Mockingbird MSM work hard ...

Posted by JohnHoukDr.

Posted by JohnHoukIrritated With Transformation Yet?

Posted by JohnHoukVOTE TRUMP – Overcome Dem-Marxist/RINO Lies – Video Share SUMMARY: The first batch of shared videos reflects VOTE-FOR-TRUMP in the midst of Dem-Marxist/RINO government LIES.

Posted by JohnHoukA Look at Mike Benz, THEN Tucker Ep.

Posted by JohnHoukLooking at ‘The Great Setup with Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukEnlightening Videos of a Corrupted Society SUMMARY: … The thing is, TYRANNY today has become very multifaceted in how the socio-political infection of CONTROL has crept into the one-time Land of ...

  • Top tags#video #youtube #world #government #media #biden #democrats #USA #truth #children #Police #society #god #money #reason #Canada #rights #freedom #culture #China #hope #racist #death #vote #politics #communist #evil #socialist #Socialism #TheTruth #justice #kids #democrat #evidence #crime #conservative #hell #laws #nation #liberal #federal #community #military #racism #climate #violence #book #politicians #joebiden #fear ...

    Members 9,397Top

    Moderators