Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sdgla who wrote (1109760)	1/11/2019 10:28:53 PM
From: ryanaka	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571643

Read more carefully. The point was, no one (of the general public) can judge the scientific results directly, and everyone should carefully discern who to listen to, namely the climate scientists and their consensus. Climate science is science. So, you should listen to the scientific consensus, not to the crackpot experts, pseudoscientists, the disinformation propaganda specialists, or the politicians or populists catering to what you want to hear rather than telling facts as they are. Climate change is a problem that can decide life or death matter to humanity. Runaway climate change can end the planet. It can only be addressed with political will. The current problem of climate change debate is the failure to separate the above two. Climate change is not a matter of public debate. It is science and the conclusion should be scientifically sound. The climate change projection, going forward, such as RCP8.5 falls in the domain of the climate scientists, not of the politicians or disinformation propagandists. Your debate is mute when you can't distinguish the above two.

To: Sdgla who wrote (1109760)	1/12/2019 1:43:46 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571643

When they begin the “you’re just not intelligent enough to understand” you’ve reached the end of the debate. Ahh. Not quite. First of all we have to discuss whether they are in fact more intelligent then myself. It's not a big deal, I have worked with plenty of people who were possessed with better scientific skills then my self, but these people were always a source of illumination rather then critics of my intelligence. It's usually fairly easy to distinguish the wheat from the chaff in this matter. A number of people I met in business had exalted opinions of themselves and their knowledge of scientific procedures and matters. One always has to be on guard to change ones mind in the light of better knowledge and information. I feel I can do that. At the end of the day some people are slower in adapting to new enlightenment then others. Second. Is science a religion? Is a person allowed to question results and be critical of current theory, and do theories have to be robust enough to withstand critical review ? Feynman speaks on the subject in the video below. In this case it was on the likelihood of flying saucers. Now this is not to doubt whether life (as we dont know it) exists or not. That is a matter of religious belief in normal circumstances. I am a religious person, not the kind that attends church usually, but I do have religious beliefs. I think I can separate my religious belief from scientific knowledge. The scientific procedure here is very clearly explained. Enjoy. openculture.com So we have this tiny globe of space dust flying through space called Earth. It is being irradiated by a nearby star with heat so that organic life can exist on it. The temperature of the planet is driven largely by the proximity of that star, the processes within that star, and the temperature of that planet has been nearly constant for a long period of time. Some beings on that planet have predicted that the future temperature of that planet is being determined by human activity, and have dictated that that a very significant portion of the resources at hand be dedicated to monitoring that activity, managing and controlling it. I say that view (human induced climate change) is a reach. It might be true, but unlikely as there are a lot of other variables that might be in play and have yet to be eliminated from the equation (model) for what keeps this planet warm enough to support life. What has caused the known ice ages for example? I remember watching the sad case of the extinction of the cave bears by the advancing ice age that slowly snuffed them out. Life is tough, and the cave bears might of questioned whether there was a cave bear god as they got trapped and frozen out of the existence that we know a little about.. There was of course (imho ... but that is a religious view) , and it helped them exist for as long as possible. There are immediate challenges that threaten human life on this planet. People think Hitler, Stalin, and Zedong are the bad guys for killing millions of people. What a silly view that is, that they are any worse then ourselves. They might just look like naughty school children when any one of us might be responsible for billions of deaths and immense suffering rather then just a few hundred million people being killed by dictators and government programs. I think Bartletts review of the exponential equation should be getting a lot more attention then so called "climate change". I don't think governments or elites should be thinking about deliberately exterminating large portions of the human population.... that kind of dumb view will get us extinct in a very short period of time (once again imho) but we should think constructively how this problem can be tackled while remaining socially responsible humans. It is the social aspects of being human that make us "special". If a calamity occurs and we retrace back into a mad max world, it's the larger social collections that will survive. I assume readers have seen the film. Those rugged individuals who feel they can bunker down with large proportions of the Earths bounty just for themselves will learn they are just the store keepers in those circumstances. I suspect their skills as diplomats will determine weather they survive rather then any collection of weapon systems they possess. In a social group, we no longer exist as individual hunter gatherers. We socially interact and develop specialist skills where the group can overcome any individual, or small numbers of them. Regarding the USA, I have admiration for Smedley Butler's view. Capitalism should not be labeling sovereign nations as "a bunch of communists" just because the native populations wish to trade and share their indigenous wealth. That is not godless communism, that is common sense. Allowing elite individuals to brainwash a nation into becoming aggressive invaders of other nations wealth is something we should learn to undo in our society. I think the USA can become a leader once again in the field of human enrichment and accomplishment. It's just a matter of realising where mistakes have been made and encouraging an environment where robust solutions are developed. It's always been my view that understanding the problem is more then 50% of the solution.