Advertisement

Author Topic: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma  (Read 361 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline w1s3m0n

  • PH Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 97
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
« Reply #15 on: June 17, 2017, 08:38:29 AM »
Let me illustrate some points.

Proposition 1: man causes pollution (true statement)
Proposition 2: pollution is unhealthy to human (true statement)
Proposition 3: pollution is unhealthy to the environment (true statement)

Conclusion of 1, 2, and 3:  Pollution will cause planetary destruction to the earth of unimaginable proportion (leap of faith)).

When you take 3 truth statements and make a conclusion, the said conclusion is not nnecessary true.  In fact, the conclusion is exceptionally hard to prove.  If the conclusion is to be said to be true, we need significantly more objective data such that if we have the data it's probably too late.  That there is the conundrum.  This is why climate supporters are making a leap of faith.  Science doesn't take sides.  Science is self evident by the objective data such that nobody can deny it.  Science isn't popularity because science progresses forward through perturbation (aka noise  aka outliers aka innovation).  When science is entangled in politics like it is in climate science, it is not objective and becomes more about the political institution than the scientific institution.  Climate science is a lackey to politics and we know politics doesn't in innovate science because politics often shut oppositions up.  Politics often delay innovation as the church and state did to Galellio.  My greatest concern and I choose to take climate change as the platform to argue from is the independence of science from corruption.



Like this post: 0

Adverstisement

Offline hmgROCK

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 4514
  • Respect: +58
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2017, 08:01:24 AM »
Let me illustrate some points.

Proposition 1: man causes pollution (true statement)
Proposition 2: pollution is unhealthy to human (true statement)
Proposition 3: pollution is unhealthy to the environment (true statement)

Conclusion of 1, 2, and 3:  Pollution will cause planetary destruction to the earth of unimaginable proportion (leap of faith)).

When you take 3 truth statements and make a conclusion, the said conclusion is not nnecessary true.  In fact, the conclusion is exceptionally hard to prove.  If the conclusion is to be said to be true, we need significantly more objective data such that if we have the data it's probably too late.  That there is the conundrum.  This is why climate supporters are making a leap of faith.  Science doesn't take sides.  Science is self evident by the objective data such that nobody can deny it.  Science isn't popularity because science progresses forward through perturbation (aka noise  aka outliers aka innovation).  When science is entangled in politics like it is in climate science, it is not objective and becomes more about the political institution than the scientific institution.  Climate science is a lackey to politics and we know politics doesn't in innovate science because politics often shut oppositions up.  Politics often delay innovation as the church and state did to Galellio.  My greatest concern and I choose to take climate change as the platform to argue from is the independence of science from corruption.

ok

let say that 99% of the science are wrong

my question to you is

what is wrong with having clean air and water?

i won't want to go around wearing a mask all day and drink lead water



Like this post: 0
God did not created man...man created god

Offline w1s3m0n

  • PH Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 97
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
« Reply #17 on: June 20, 2017, 08:04:47 AM »
In America we are so concern with the environment because almost all of our needs are fulfilled by our social fabric and harmony.  In third world country, their social fabric is torn and there is war and chaos, completely almost no harmony.  It is easy for us, the propspering people to criticize the leaders for are allowing pollution.  It is easy for these environmentali st to complain when what they should be doing is becoming a scientist or engineer if they cared so deeply about clean air and water.  Only scientist and engineers can design new paradigm shift in energy consumption to support the exponentially growing population.  No amount of conservation will solve the problem of over population.  I think I said this before, the problem isn't dirty energy like coal, the root cause that drives the need for dirty coal is population growth and demand in affordable energy.  A third world or becoming first world country will burn the cheapest fuel, and use their environment to satisfy the growing need of their population.  Those nation choose between food/shelter/safety over environment.  If the leader chooses environment people will riot.  even the staunched environmentali st who have gone off grid know their personal sacrifice will have zero effect because population growth will eradicate all their efforts.

Let me ask a question of you?  What do you choose?  Food/shelter/safety vs. clean environment.  I and many choose the prior out of necessity.  (See Maslow Hierarchy of Need to reference on necessity)



Like this post: 0

Offline w1s3m0n

  • PH Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 97
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
« Reply #18 on: June 20, 2017, 08:13:56 AM »
Last point on this.  There is only one real solution: build cleaner energy and facilities to manage and dispose human waste.  Total war sounds easy but it doesn't solve the growth problem.  1 child policy is coercion of such policy places the burden on poor people more than rich.  As we struggle with the environment it is a much more complex problem than wishing for clean air and water.  There are social issues that needs addressing as well.



Like this post: 0

Offline hmgROCK

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 4514
  • Respect: +58
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
« Reply #19 on: June 20, 2017, 08:52:12 AM »
you got to have a clean environment to have food/shelter/water/safety
right now, your food ain't being grow where you live
it being truck in

i live in upper wisconsin
there not alot of factory up here
we have some of the best fishing and hunting here






Like this post: 0
God did not created man...man created god

Offline w1s3m0n

  • PH Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 97
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
« Reply #20 on: June 21, 2017, 01:03:30 AM »
Why you gotta lie about northern Wisconsin.  Everybody knows the wolf river is dirty dirty.  The DNR rates upper Wisconsin area around Fremont and down very bad.  The wood and paper industries near the borde of Wisconsin and Canada dumps tons of pollutant.  People like you don't seem to care because your need today far exceed your health tomorrow.  This point is what I've been trying to tell you.  You demonstrate my point well.

Nice looking white bass are the ones from North Dakota 15 years ago before the fracking.  Today they aren't as pretty.  Your white bass is dark.  It's been in dirty water.



Like this post: +1

Offline hmgROCK

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 4514
  • Respect: +58
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
« Reply #21 on: June 21, 2017, 08:26:25 AM »
Why you gotta lie about northern Wisconsin.  Everybody knows the wolf river is dirty dirty.  The DNR rates upper Wisconsin area around Fremont and down very bad.  The wood and paper industries near the borde of Wisconsin and Canada dumps tons of pollutant.  People like you don't seem to care because your need today far exceed your health tomorrow.  This point is what I've been trying to tell you.  You demonstrate my point well.

Nice looking white bass are the ones from North Dakota 15 years ago before the fracking.  Today they aren't as pretty.  Your white bass is dark.  It's been in dirty water.

that's what i am trying to say bro

WHAT IS WRONG WITH CLEAN WATER AND AIR?


the answer is:  NOTHING, we need more of those


trust me, at least there fish here
we got folks coming from illinois, iowa and even MN
cause their lake and river are soo pollute fish don't even live there no more

because there less pollution here
notice how i say less



Like this post: 0
God did not created man...man created god

Offline w1s3m0n

  • PH Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 97
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Change - Data vs. Dogma
« Reply #22 on: June 21, 2017, 10:35:26 AM »
Let me say first I mean no ill will about what it is I am going to say.  I'm going to use you to illustrate my point now that I know you live in fox valley and understand the fox valley issue.  20+ years ago when I started fishing in the fox valley area the white bass was cleaner and biggger.  They are called white bass for a reason.  Now they are dark, tinted and brown.  They are dirty now.  Wisconsin river has cleaner fish per DNR.  20+ years ago The Fox Valley area were:
1) less population
2) less pollution
3) more clean fish
4) more clean water and air
5) less opportunities
6) less companies by market size

Around 20- years ago Wisconsin made Fox Valley an area of targeted growth versus SE Wisconsin.  Why?  Affordable properties, less regulation, and etc... major companies started to spring up and grow rapidly making Fox Valley area a super desirable place to live affordably.  It is exactly the tensions I've been describing to you that you can say, I don't need a four year degree to live a good life and travel.  You see the industrial growth is why you can haha and complain about needing clean air and clean water, have a good paying job, live in an affordable area, and travel.  You take the pollution away by increasing regulation the companies goes away, you lose your job, you can't travel and now don't care about clean air and clean water because your gut nervous system (brain) is way smarter than your head brain.

Today the fox valley:
1) more companies by market size
2) more opportunities
3) more population
4) more pollution
5) less fish
6) less clean air and water

Notice the trade off!?!?!  If yuh don't then I don't know how to explain this.  LOL!!

Let me make my position clear.  I am for clean air and clean water when the technology can support it.  People needs supersedes nature.  Hopefully, you understand the topic a bit better now that I use your life as an example.


« Last Edit: June 21, 2017, 10:40:22 AM by w1s3m0n »

Like this post: 0

 

Advertisements