If Climate Science Is Settled Then Why Do We Need Research Scientists?

[TheGoverness]

Any ideas as to why the party of tolerance, is so intolerant of conservatives?

Because colleges (if we're talking specifically about the college environment) are no longer a place for debate and discussion or even tolerance. It's a place where everyone's sensibilities have to be catered to in order to not offend them.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Because colleges (if we're talking specifically about the college environment) are no longer a place for debate and discussion or even tolerance. It's a place where everyone's sensibilities have to be catered to in order to not offend them.

LOL...

Everyone except who disagrees with the indoctrination.

 

[TheGoverness]

LOL...

Everyone except who disagrees with the indoctrination.

Well of course. They can't handle criticism, hence why they need colleges to act as "safe spaces" for them, and want everyone to alter their speech to adhere to their sensibilities.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Well of course. They can't handle criticism, hence why they need colleges to act as "safe spaces" for them, and want everyone to alter their speech to adhere to their sensibilities.

Yep.

Everyone gets a gold star.

 

[AlbqOwl]

That's probably the case.

I'd probably hate it too, because despite me also being a liberal I tend to disagree with many of the college liberals on numerous issues, more specifically with them trying to shut down debates and differing opinions.

Bless you. That would identify you with the liberals when I was completing my education and first starting out. New or different points of view were not feared or squashed back then. Our university invited Communists, Birchers, and everything in between to speak on campus and all were welcomed and treated with the greatest respect. That was when 'liberal' was open to new ideas, new ways of thinking, and encouraged critical thinking to weigh alternate concepts, all the consequences involved, and choose the wisest and/or most productive or beneficial.

 

[Grand Mal]

I worked for a decade in a University, Mine was the School of Science and Engineering, but had interactions
with all the other schools. There is a strong liberal lean at almost every school and every level.
The people with actual conservative views, tended to keep quiet about them.
Even the tenured faculty who openly espoused conservative ideals were somewhat excluded.

Probably a simple reason for that.

 

[Geoist]

Good question. If we already know what we need to know about climate science such that we can go ahead with enormously expensive policies to address it then why are we still spending money on the research? Seems like the money could be spent in more productive areas, like putting climate skeptics in jail, abolishing free speech and democracy, switching to a centrally controlled economy and generally advancing a totalitarian agenda; for the good of Gaia, of course.

Creationist weirdo: "If evolution science is settled then why do we need evolutionary scientists?!"

Same logic. Dumb.

 

[Geoist]

This is the dumbest thread on climate science in a while.

By the reasoning presented in the opening post, since we still have Evolutionary Biologists, evolution is not settled science.

Posted very similar response before I read thread. Great minds, right? :lol:

 

[Geoist]

Any ideas as to why the party of tolerance, is so intolerant of conservatives?

When did political parties become part of the discussion?

And since when did tolerance mean accepting whatever somebody says as fact?

 

[Threegoofs]

When did political parties become part of the discussion?

And since when did tolerance mean accepting whatever somebody says as fact?

Ugh. What a smug answer.

 

[Geoist]

Ugh. What a smug answer.

What was smug about what I said?

 

[Threegoofs]

Because colleges (if we're talking specifically about the college environment) are no longer a place for debate and discussion or even tolerance. It's a place where everyone's sensibilities have to be catered to in order to not offend them.

I think this stuff is exaggerated greatly.

Most of the discussions I've had with both students and faculty at many universities regard most of this stuff as pretty 'fringe' behavior, like militant vegans or PETA protesters.

 

[Threegoofs]

What was smug about what I said?

I was being ironic. Forgot the emoji.

Generally, deniers are always complaining that people don't take their views seriously, despite the fact that half the time they're spouting nutty conspiracy theories.

 

[Geoist]

I was being ironic. Forgot the emoji.

Generally, deniers are always complaining that people don't take their views seriously, despite the fact that half the time they're spouting nutty conspiracy theories.

Gotcha! I have no doubt they will interpret my post as smug, but in my mind there is nothing more smug than someone who claims to know more about x than the overwhelming majority of x experts.

 

[SocialD]

Gotcha! I have no doubt they will interpret my post as smug, but in my mind there is nothing more smug than someone who claims to know more about x than the overwhelming majority of x experts.

I think that chain of responses you have there is missing the whole point that was posted though... the point from the quote was not why do you need climate scientists if its settled.. it is why are we allocating tax payer money on it if its settled. lets allocate tax payer money on things that are not settled.

 

[Geoist]

I think that chain of responses you have there is missing the whole point that was posted though... the point from the quote was not why do you need climate scientists if its settled..

The fact global warming occurs and that humans are a major cause is settled, however, there is plenty to still understand and study. If it is an ongoing process, wouldn't it make sense to monitor it's progress?

it is why are we allocating tax payer money on it if its settled. lets allocate tax payer money on things that are not settled.

Two things:

1. Many, if not most, deniers oppose practically all publicly-funded scientific research.
2. Government already funds just about every scientific issue under the sun (and beyond).

 

[AlbqOwl]

It just seems to me that if the pro-AGW crowd was so secure in their convictions, there would be no fear of new data being introduced. The unconvinced would not be trashed, ostracized, belittled, ridiculed, insulted, marginalized, demonized and/or every attempt made to exclude them or shut them up.

I've never seen such unscientific attitudes about science about anything in my lifetime than what we see in the pro-AGW group. If there was no other reason to be a skeptic, that would do it for me.

 

[Threegoofs]

It

I've never seen such unscientific attitudes about science about anything in my lifetime than what we see in the pro-AGW group.

LOL.

Except for the fact that they are all the top, you know, scientists.

 

[AlbqOwl]

LOL.

Except for the fact that they are all the top, you know, scientists.

A scientist has an open mind and is open to new data and new information and does not fear disagreement. That is not the case with the pro-AGW 'scientific' community.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

A scientist has an open mind and is open to new data and new information and does not fear disagreement. That is not the case with the pro-AGW 'scientific' community.

What are the areas of disagreement?

That climate change is happening?

That mankind has had an influence on the rate of climate change?

That the effects of climate change represent a threat?

 

[iguanaman]

A scientist has an open mind and is open to new data and new information and does not fear disagreement. That is not the case with the pro-AGW 'scientific' community.

When that "disagreement" hampers effective measures to combat the problem there is naturally a backlash. Like when one of our 2 major parties completely denies AGW as if they were scientists themselves. I have seen no evidence that scientists are not open to new data unless it is fraudulently obtained or portrayed like much of the denialist stuff is.

 

[AlbqOwl]

What are the areas of disagreement?

That climate change is happening?

That mankind has had an influence on the rate of climate change?

That the effects of climate change represent a threat?

No disagreement among the pro-AGW crowd. All you have to do is keep parroting those points to keep the grant money coming in, or keep your job at the university or whatever, or to be included in the 'in' crowd for other socioeconomic or political reasons. Of course you also have to agree that human caused climate change is a serious issue/problem/threat too whether you actually believe that or not. And you have to be willing to endorse the scientific opinion whether or not you have even read or studied it.

But anyone who suggests the possibility that climate has always changed, that humankind like all other living things likely has at least some effect on that, but that there is no consensus that whatever effect humankind is having is a significant harmful effect or that the effect may actually be beneficial, is immediately branded a pariah and outcast to be smeared as much as possible.

 

[JackA]

Good question. If we already know what we need to know about climate science such that we can go ahead with enormously expensive policies to address it then why are we still spending money on the research? Seems like the money could be spent in more productive areas, like putting climate skeptics in jail, abolishing free speech and democracy, switching to a centrally controlled economy and generally advancing a totalitarian agenda; for the good of Gaia, of course.

Dumb question. The "settled science" assertion is that the mere existence of climate change is settled, not all questions relating to its causes and effects. There is a new study in the news just today concerning the effects of climate change on the Pacific Ocean. Because the ocean is warming it is losing its ability to absorb oxygen. Unpleasant consequences ahead.

 

[AlbqOwl]

When that "disagreement" hampers effective measures to combat the problem there is naturally a backlash. Like when one of our 2 major parties completely denies AGW as if they were scientists themselves. I have seen no evidence that scientists are not open to new data unless it is fraudulently obtained or portrayed like much of the denialist stuff is.

When one side forbids any disagreement and uses their 'settled science' as a club to deny people their property, resources, options, opportunities, choices, and liberties, and increase government control and power, I see that as a far more serious affront to science than those who suggest such is not what we should condone.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Dumb question. The "settled science" assertion is that the mere existence of climate change is settled, not all questions relating to its causes and effects. There is a new study in the news just today concerning the effects of climate change on the Pacific Ocean. Because the ocean is warming it is losing its ability to absorb oxygen. Unpleasant consequences ahead.

Yes, the study says global warming will destroy our oceans within 20 years. But where is the national concern? Where are the mandates and the armies mobilized to save the planet? Wouldn't you expect those who believe that to be demanding immediate draconian measures be taken to save us all? Why is business being conducted per usual everywhere?

How many times has such doom and gloom been predicted now, and how many times have those prediction just been shrugged off by the scientific community when they turn out to be baseless? (Or made up out of whole cloth.) They simply think up a new doom and gloom scenario to put out there to keep all that lovely grant money flowing to them.

The little boy who cried wolf too many times was not just a fairy tale. It was a warning to limit real danger to those things that are actually dangerous. The pro-AGW crowd must have missed that story.

Honestly, how gullible do they expect us to be? Quite a bit it would seem.