leicsmac

There certainly needs to be more options available to people leaving school - as said above, higher education doesn't necessarily mean simply going to university. That's very true. All tribal. And then you have the dedicated individualists who call out "everyone"...but then don't necessarily consider the necessity of some semblance of unity in human interaction, especially to adapt to a changing world - and how much the actions of other people contribute to their lives even as they promote their own "independence" from "groupthink".

Anyhow, unpopular opinion out in the world, not sure about here: Offshoots of spaceflight programs are more responsible for advances that make life better for our species long term than at least half of the projects done solely on Earth to "help people" short term, and should be funded far more than they are.

I figured. Think that depends on the subject being studied and whatever the current economic climate is.

...if I might ask, would Jo Jorgensen be a better approximation?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67557533 Interesting summation on COP28 from the Beeb.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67488931 Researchers have located "the perfect solar system", forged without the violent collisions that made our own a hotchpotch of different-sized planets. The system, 100 light years away, has six planets, all about the same size. They've barely changed since its formation up to 12 billion years ago. Interesting. We're still not sure what kinds of planetary systems are the predominant one in our local area, much less the rest of the galaxy/universe, so finding out more about that is important.

For additional context, here's some Anthony Bourdain.

"I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow Speaking personally, I can imagine there are a great many people of such influence and with such little care for people outside their particular interest in the western world today. They're just not as obviously placed as he was.

I'll have more of a look at this, thank you. One thing I will say right away is that the results and critique of the peer review process, as well as those who carry it out and evaluations of their conduct, should absolutely be in the public domain. However, the people themselves doing the critique and reviewing that is then made public must have credentials that prove they actually know what they're talking about when it comes to the topic they're reviewing, or the entire process would be reduced to a populist joke where the paper that tells people what they want to hear most gets the best reviews, rather than one that actually tells the truth. If some folks think that is "gatekeeping" then so be it, but it is vital that the "peers" in the peer review process are experts with proven expertise.

I'm sorry, but what other conclusion can be inferred by the following statement that the peer review system which all scientists rely on is fundamentally flawed and that the science corps involved know this? I have no doubt that politics and powerplays form part of such processes - the people involved are human, after all. However, my own take is that the system itself is robust enough to weed out such corruption and the "factual" data wins out in the end, as has happened with numerous examples throughout history - Darwin and the theory of evolution being one. There was certainly such "ideological capture" going around in his time, too; but in the end it didn't matter. I'm curious as to what such a "decentralised" review system would consist of and whether or not the people involved in it would themselves be scientists. And if they are, how it would differ from the current system. To answer these in turn: - If we can slow down (or even limit) the temperature increases, it would have a massive effect on the consequences and thus the measures needed to adapt to them, as well as the time we have. - It is absolutely worth it, unless the "cost to buy" is at least hundreds of millions of dead, suffering and displaced people and at most civilisational collapse, because those are the costs should we not get this done in time - We do need the extra time, because there simply isn't enough time to develop infrastructure so robust that it saves "everyone". Again, time is lives - and more lives than the cost. - Same as above, unless the suffering now is at least hundreds of millions of dead, suffering and displaced people and at most civilisational collapse, then yes, it is worth it, because those are the consequences that lie in wait. These trade-offs have been discussed in the scientific community, and there's been no little agonising about the cost of dealing with this problem. But by every metric we have, the consequences of not addressing it in the way it needs to be addressing are far, far worse.

You're right - ice cores for up to a few million years, isotopes for older. However, is there any concrete reason to suggest that the isotopic method is really that flawed? If so, why use it at all? I am well aware of the peer-review system and academia, yes. So the conclusion here is that the entire climate science corps (and by extension the entire peer review process) is fundamentally corrupt and simply telling other people what they want to hear, then? Well, I think without proof that that's grotesque libel against decent people in of itself (a opinion piece talking about the lack of critique of scientific papers post-publication in some cases does not a fundamentally corrupt system prove), but let's assume for a moment that it is in fact the case (and that's a mad-sized if). That means that, due to that corruption that would be seemingly inescapable, the very notion of scientific fact that same process seeks to uncover is dead, as is public perception of it, as is any policy that might be crafted as a result of it, because there would be no single point of truth or fact, no way of deriving it, that we as a species could use to make our decisions. ....is that really the pathway we want to go down? Because if it is, all I see down that way isn't a 1984-style dystopia, it's a collapse into a Mad Max-style future, followed swiftly (on a geological timescale) by oblivion. That world, where decision-making cannot be based on empirical observation of the world around us (and consensus on same) but rather on how people perceive something (rather than what it actually is) is a place far worse than any "Statist" nightmare you might even dream of. The rate of change buys us time to adapt, and yes, that is critical. Time means money, and human lives.

Fvcking right I do.

This has been covered on here before. Yes, the Earth was significantly hotter in the past, yes, life still flourished there - the difference here is in the degree of change, the speed at which it is happening, and our own ability to adapt (or not) to it. Contrary to the post above, we do in fact have a pretty good idea of the speed of such trends in the past, and this one is far faster than any of them. I'm sorry, but this is simply false. From the very first page of this thread: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966?454b5589_page=2&70ef0ed6_page=2&c0d8a10d_page=2&454b5589_page=2&70ef0ed6_page=3&c0d8a10d_page=2 "We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature." There is a scientific consensus - both of data and of viewpoint. Of course, one might suggest that the entire climate science corps is corrupt and in hock to the same nefarious parties you mention here, but quite honestly it would be nice to see proof of that before libelling decent people who mostly have no political motives. Fearing State power is a good idea, given the excesses it's gone to in the past. However, acts of nature - like this one - can and do cause more death, misery and suffering than all of the "Statists" wet dreams put together and multiplied by an order of magnitude. For example, a single virus (H1N1 flu) killed between three and five times as many people as World War I, in a quarter of the time, at the same time. Another (malaria) has been responsible for more deaths in the 20th Century than all wars and acts of oppression put together in the same time. The recent events of flooding and drought brought on by our changing climate have already killed thousands, and that is barely scratching the surface of what could be coming. I get your worry, and it's legit - but perhaps you might want to think about worrying more about the bigger threat of what nature can do to humans, than what humans can do to each other. We have a clear and actionable influence on the current warming cycle that is making it act in a way not seen before in recorded history. Therefore, we also have the capacity to influence that trend in a better way and at least slow it down to buy more time. Yes, the Earth and its consequences are huge - but that doesn't mean those consequences can't be brought about by human activity. And were it just the "elites" going on about this, I would agree with the last paragraph, but it isn't - again, as per above, the scientific consensus on this matter does exist and is obvious.

It's something of a logical dilemma (don't remember which one would be the closest), but the important thing to remember is that the only thing abandoning "our" own attempts does is guarantee failure.

And to extend this analogy a little further if applicable, we're landing at Lukla Airport, and we have no go-around option.

Yeah, I can understand the points of view here. As I've also said before, while I don't have much faith in the path that we're pursuing simply because I don't reckon it will do enough in time (to focus on the bolded a moment) because it isn't producing the necessary results yet to save at least hundreds of millions if lives and at most human civilisation itself (that's pretty much the entire thing I'm using as my benchmark of scepticism tbh), I understand asking for conclusive proof at the present time is likely unreasonable and we've got to take a few things on faith - indeed, the same is true regarding projections of the consequences of not doing enough because we can't be 100% sure about those either. I just hope that I'm wrong and the more optimistic appraisal you have of the situation is right, because it will mean in a few decades we'll still actually have a functional human civilisation to look back on and discuss it.

1. Fair enough. Perhaps I'm expecting too much when these new standards aren't actually causing a noticeable shift in carbon emissions and global average temperature yet. 2. I'm going by what the BBC uncovered. It's not direct evidence on its own, but then equally the opposite is also true and so I'm making, yes, an opinionated logical progression about the intention of the parties in this case that I think it likely given history of such behaviours but could be wrong. Apologies if that wasn't clear already. 3. Speaking personally, I think the report was pretty even handed and remarked (at least mostly) on the factual contents of the reports they uncovered.

That's the ideal, but is there any evidence of it working in terms of tangible results at this time? This current behaviour regarding continued use of oil and gas (provided it is what it looks like) would suggest that the above plans are, at least, "open to interpretation". Pardon my lack of faith when leading actors act like this. Fair to say, I'm going by Occam's Razor here, but it's possible that the ME actors are engaged in some kind of backroom deal regarding cleaner energy that no one can know about right now. NB. I just wish I had more faith in such market-driven solutions as you clearly do, I just don't think they look long enough or deep enough for a problem of this magnitude and I really could do with compelling evidence to prove otherwise, but I guess that's not really possible until the job is done and such results spring from it.

Yeah, that's how the game is played. It's just puerile, ridiculous and contemptible in this particular field and there is no reason to think that free market "competition" is going to spare human civilisation from the worst here - only unified collaborative action will, if it comes about. If I see actual tangible big results from the methodologies being currently used (eg. net zero carbon emission targets being met and a commensurate slowing and stopping of global average temperature increase, or even just a vague sign of the above), then I'd change my mind.

I think that's existed for a very long time, but yeah.

The "death of faith in expertise" will have very long, very far-reaching consequences.

Oh, but it is worth a debate, because it's being played out every day. Of course, the very idea of social Darwinism whereby inequality is simply accepted as a "fact of life" is...well, horrible, but that doesn't mean that people aren't believing in and applying that idea every day and so the debate needs to be had.

If this were true, then they could simply come clean with it and explain themselves (because it would be a very legit explanation) rather than going on about private discussions like the kid caught with their hand in the cookie jar. No need for the cloak and dagger stuff when you know you're doing stuff that actually benefits the future and which most people will approve of.

If that's true - and it's definitely plausible - then I am giving them too much credit, yeah. Guess they're only human too, after all. In any case, such short-sighted self-interest is going to get punished, one way or another.

I've said this before, but I honestly don't get the stance of these folks towards this matter. They know that they are ignoring clear, obvious and consequential scientific consensus, on something as obvious as the force of gravity, and most of them are of the age where there is still enough time for the consequences of this ignorance and power-mongering to pivot directly upon them. Are they really so disinterested about their own future, to say nothing of other people? Or do they think that somehow the consequences will not pivot upon them, that the money and influence they have now will buy enough protection to see things through in the style they are accustomed to, no matter what happens, until they die? Either way, it's utterly abhorrent and should things go horribly sideways, there will be a reckoning for them.