Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

yeah, not stating what i mean clearly at all.  your right Aqizzar, too easy to abuse how i am saying it versus what i am trying to say.

Unfortunately, the only easy to understand words that come to mind are too cliche and culturalized.  i will ponder a better formulated response.

[G-Flex]

thats what i mean by stopping people from doing whatever they are gonna do and have done for 1000+ years that was never criminal before.  I dont think i am stating that clearly tho.

The thing is, this hasn't been a problem for that long. The problem is mainly to do with the world post-industrialization, and even if it didn't, something being "right" before we understood its consequences doesn't mean it actually is right, or will be considered "right" forever.

[mainiac]

The same people who attack the climate change scientists for trying to make their case in the best light possible are the people who have been using outright lies for decades in a well documented campaign to hide the truth.  It's sad really how naive the denial crowd is.  Maybe pathetic even. 

The entire narrative is childishly simple.  You have two sides to the debate, science and oil companies.  One side has a history of pursuing higher ideals.  The other side has a history of horrible evil out of greed.  Gee... I wonder which one to trust?

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

One side has a history of pursuing higher ideals. 

Eugenics......................................

[kuro_suna]

One side has a history of pursuing higher ideals. 

Eugenics......................................

Is it possible to disagree with the right wing on ANYTHING without getting labelled a communist or nazi.

[G-Flex]

I think he's just making the point that new science has been used for nasty things before.


I think it's usually just bad application of new/poorly-understood science, rather than the scientists themselves, though. Usually.

[kuro_suna]

Eugenics programs in the past don't have anything to with science except the concept of artificial selection that we knew about ever since we started domesticating crops and animals.

[G-Flex]

To be fair, eugenics WAS considered much more legitimate science prior to WWII, as the concept of evolution started to take hold.

You're right that we've been using the same processes on plants and animals for such a long time, but eugenics itself didn't become popular until relatively recently.

Of course, I still consider eugenics more a case of poorly-applied science than a case of the scientific community itself reaching the wrong conclusions.

[eerr]

Wait, this thread is expected to come to a useful conclusion? I am suddenly amused by peoples' antics.

[nil]

Things are getting really bad in this country.  Conservatives and liberals (I use these terms because there's not any better ones, not because they're terribly accurate) live in totally different worlds.  Words mean different things, history isn't the same, and basic facts cannot be agreed on.  Worst of all, each side has absolutely no trust in the sources the other side finds credible.

There's only two commonalities, as far as I can tell.  Both have low opinions of most of the politicians currently in office, and both are convinced that someone, somewhere, is fucking them.  Sort of a strange consensus for what arguably remains the most powerful nation in the history of the world, when you think about it.

[kuro_suna]

At the same time the main stigma attached to it, the holocaust had very little to do with eugenics and more too do with Jews being used as a scapegoat for Germany's loss in the first world war and war reparation crippled economy. Most of the misconception about the cause of the holocaust are because many Europeans like to pretend that Antisemitism was a nazi invention and not something that existed all across Europe for thousands of years.

[G-Flex]

Both were involved, although I think eugenics was mostly invoked for the reason of advancing the cause of absurd nationalism and hatemongering.

[Cthulhu]

Man, I've tried to defend Fox News before, watching it and not noticing anything really bad, but you should hear them on this Climate thing.  I overheard someone (I believe it was that one guy whose name escapes me, the one who's kind of like Sean Hannity if you hit Sean Hannity in the head with a baseball bat) saying as part of his show "Global warming has been completely debunked"

wut

[LegoLord]

Here's the deal, Cthulu -
FOX News is bunk, and that's all there is too it.  Trust me.  I see it every time I open up firefox.
They think that nude celebrities, celebrity gossip, and PETA activities are important, top of the page news to be put just below the main headline.  They're wrong, naturally.

[de5me7]

I barely care whether or not global warming is real because limited oil supplies are undoubtedly real (you can debate how close we are to the peak, but you can't debate that it will come someday) and the solutions to climate change are mostly the same as the solutions to peak oil.

i ran this through an older climate change model in my third year. i took the (now old) EIA forcasts of a peak in about 2027, made some generalised assumptions about the amount of Co2 drawn from oil, ignored the fact that a decline in oil supplies would bring most other industry down with it, and ran it rhough the model.

got a total temperature rise of 0.5-2 degrees me thinks. averaging about 1 degree for the 100 years. So year the peak (which wil happen at some point) could save us from the worst, but a global average 1 degree rise would still wipe out hundreds of species, raise sea level wenuth to bugger bangladesh, and cause some other issues, but not quite day after tommorow stuff (not that that film is especially grounded in the real world).

btw the only thing that really irritates me about the debate is when sckeptical economists say - climate change is a lie because it is making money for research depts and companies that have constructed it.

I wonder who makes more money the strongest proponents or the strongest skeptics?

opionons wash over evidence when so much money is at stake