just think about it: the movement continued after he lost in 2016, and it will likely continue now even more so. So we have the answer: of course it proceeds without him.
— Xtrix

Will it continue without him as a focal point? — frank

There's good evidence to suggest that, yes. The Sunrise Movement isn't based on Sanders as a leader. Nor was the Occupy Movement (in fact he was riding that wave in many ways). The policies of $15 minimum wage, universal healthcare, Green new deal, etc., aren't exclusively Bernie's anymore, and that's a good thing.

So in many ways we've seen that these movements and policies have developed a life of their own.

Lol. There was plenty of debate about Newton's theories, but the evidence was overwhelming. Nor was it proven "wrong" by Einstein or quantum theory. Not even close. Leave your simplistic Nickelodeon ideas of the history of science for Twitter.
— Xtrix

Yes it was. Einstein completely overturned Newton's theory of gravity. — h060tu

No, it wasn't -- nor does any scientist believe that. Newton's theories are not "wrong," nor were "proven wrong." Yes, it's true that many simpletons like you believe that, but it's not true. What Einstein did was to expand on Newton with new conceptions of space and time. Newton's laws of motion remain absolutely intact, as does the calculations.

Quit while you're behind, buddy. No one, least of all me, thinks you know anything about science. You've repeatedly shown your incompetence and buffoonery. But keep it up for laughs if you'd like.

Getting back to the discussion after many digressions and diversions from the OP:

_______________

Phusis is the basis of modern science. Why? Because modern science's ontology is one of naturalism, a kind of physicalism, and these ideas have their roots in Greek ontology.

We take naturalism for granted in the sciences, and oppose it to the "metaphysical" (and thus philosophy and religion). These are well-worn ideas.

But "science" and its naturalism sprang from the philosophy of nature (the "Natural Philosophy" of Newton and Galileo). This naturalism (or physicalism) is a picture of the world, which rests on a set of axioms -- the first and "obvious" is that the universe (nature) is "made" of matter (atoms) in space, follow laws like causality, and abide by the forces of nature (gravitation, electromagnetism, strong and weak forces).

What is "behind" this ontology? What does (and did) "nature" mean? It meant the disclosure of beings, the clearing of beings, the opening up and emergence of beings. This phusis is the word for this emergence, and is the Greek understanding of being. This word was translated into Latin as "natura," and also as "physics." It has gone through many iterations, but despite the apparent differences it has remained through and through Greek. Why?

Because the Greek sense of phusis already had in it a privileging of an aspect of time: the present. When things appear to us in perception, when they emerge from unconcealment (as truth, as aletheia), when they are "disclosed" -- they are understood on the basis of time, and particularly the present. Beings come to being in the present -- this is the history of Western thought, which has dominated it ever since: presence.

Being, phusis, means constant presence. As does ousia (or parousia) in Aristotle (often translated as "substance").

This "metaphysics of presence" is the basis for not only modern science, but Christian ontology and dogma, for the philosophies of Descartes and Kant, for the scientific research of Copernicus and Galileo and Newton, and to the contemporary manifestations in Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Neil Degrasse Tyson, John Wheeler, and even Noam Chomsky.

Why is this interpretation important? In the modern world, that means: How is this useful? How can it be monetized? But the answer to that can't be given. Philosophy is quite useless in this respect.

Given our current age, where we have the capacities to destroy ourselves with our technology (nuclear weapons, fossil fuel consumption, biological weapons), where our understanding of being -- a technological-nihilistic understanding -- is coming to dominate all other understandings of being all around the globe, it may be well to ask these questions to shake some of the our certainties in our current "scientific" worldview. Perhaps scientism isn't such a good thing. Perhaps the "death of God" has led to a nihilism in the form of this "scientism," leading to a world where the merchants and manufacturers -- and thus the merchant class worldview -- have come to power.

It is the business class, the merchants, who have gained rule. It is not governments and not the majority of people. Where does their power lie? In trade; in money. What is their philosophy? Capitalism. Maybe some believe in God, maybe some are atheists who believe in science. But none of these things -- not capitalism, not scientism, not atheism, not even Christianity any longer, offers us any real direction or hope for the future. If we continue on this path, we're finished.

That being said, the connection becomes clear: modern science is one of the dominant forces in the world today, not just in its successes but in replacing what most people once believed (Christianity) with the "results of science," which has therefore become in many ways a kind of "religion." But it offers almost no guidance to live, no direction, no goal -- other than the endless quest for "truth" and "knowledge."

This all therefore shades over in power, politics, economics, and morality. The most important people to read here are Marx (economics and politics), Nietzsche (morality), Chomsky (politics). All these men study power in its various domains.

So where's the hope? Not in philosophers and scientists and priests, but in artists and poets -- as the vanguard of humanity and the hope for some new understanding of being.





* On "metaphysics of presence." Being seems to be hidden and concealed in Heidegger, it's mainly absence. Our Western history has stressed presence. Thus to acknowledge the majority of what a human being does in average everydayness shows that more of our present-at-hand analysis, philosophy, science, etc., are all based on a highly minority activity -- a small part of the human being, which usually only occurs in school or when something breaks done. The majority of our lives are spent in skill, in habit, in "coping," in "engagement," in unconscious activity which is called "ready to hand", where traditional ideas of a theoretical, rational, logical subject which follows rules while dealing with "objects" which are "out there" and in which we deal with as present-at-hand facts (with extension, weight, mass, shape, etc).

More of Bernie's voters needed to show up in very high numbers as well, and they simply didn't.
— Xtrix

I'm not sure why. Apathy? Jaded? Or not quite agitated enough? — frank

Who knows. Some say the younger voters just don't show up in the numbers that older voters do.

I mainly watch PBS and read the NYT. I only glance at CNN and MSNBC. I become tired very quickly of their strong emotional bias. They aren't there to inform so much as to cash in on anxiety. I don't think they manufactured anxiety about Sanders' chances, but I agree that they peddled it. — frank

I don't think it was manufactured either. There's a filtering process that happens in media -- those who write the op-eds have internalized a set of core beliefs, and are thus quite sincere in their anxieties.

He's definitely not a firebrand, that's for sure. Chomsky said a Sanders victory wouldn't do anything without a continuing grassroots movement. — frank

True, not at least with congress and many state legislatures. Even then it means nothing with a clear activist agenda.

Can that proceed without Sanders in office? I wonder if anyone has asked him to talk about that. You're up there, why don't you email him and tell us what he says? — frank

Up where? And e-mail who? Chomsky? There's no need -- just think about it: the movement continued after he lost in 2016, and it will likely continue now even more so. So we have the answer: of course it proceeds without him.

I'm saying you need to apply the same to Biden if he's guilty. — Baden

If it turns out he's guilty, and I hope he is, then maybe the DNC can prop up someone else. It'll never be Sanders, of course, but even Mayor Pete is a better candidate. If not, and Biden is somehow elected, but convicted while in office -- impeach him and remove him, let the VP take over.

No thinking person likes Joe Biden, in my view. I haven't met one person enthusiastic about his candidacy (although they must be out there?), regardless of the truth or falsity of these accusations.

But all of this truly misses the point. None of it matters as much as other issues. Let him be thrown out of office -- fine. He's essentially a figurehead anyway. What matters is removing the most dangerous president in American history, then the staffing of cabinet positions, department heads, appellate and Supreme Court judges, an administration responsive to activist pressure (as Chomsky points out), etc. etc.

And at this point in history, we can't gamble. But that does NOT mean condoning rape or loving Joe Biden or the DNC or even the Democratic party. Obviously many purists disagree and believe voting third party (or not voting) will send a message. But even if that's true (and I have yet to hear solid evidence supporting this), I don't think we have the time to wait. If I did, perhaps I'd agree with this strategy.

This election is just far too important for sticking to the less dangerous party when we have a sociopath in the White House. Think of a Supreme Court with a 6-3 or 7-2 conservative majority for at least a generation, or four years of propping up the fossil fuel industry while the effects of climate change are already occurring? It should terrify everyone.

We have to get our priorities straight. Survival has to come first -- then we deal with everything else, like corruption, privacy invasion, Biden's sexual history, corporations buying elections, and so on. All very important, but not existential.

That's as rational as I can state my position.

As with Obama, personality trumps substance. — Baden

Is it really Biden's charming personality? I think Trump is far more entertaining as "personality."

Why do you hold the DNC responsible for Biden's (assumed) nomination as opposed to the voters? — frank

I don't hold them solely responsible. It's true that in South Carolina, for example, he did very well with Black voters, the elderly, etc. More of Bernie's voters needed to show up in very high numbers as well, and they simply didn't.

On the other hand, the DNC was very clear about what they wanted from the beginning, doing all they could to stop Sanders -- including the rapid events of the other candidates dropping out and quickly rallying around Biden. Sanders also never had the media on his side. Now, of course, you hear nothing but how great of a guy he is -- but we all remember the hit pieces escalating every day as it was becoming clearer he could become the nominee and panic set in.

So it's not only the DNC, but mainly. Had they been behind him as much as this senile, weak, milquetoast establishment politician who they have ordained as the nominee and now have to prop up, Bernie would have easily won. Instead they joined the conservatives by attacking him for being "extreme," basically a communist, and more importantly stressed how there was "no chance" he would beat Trump (I had this debate on this forum, in fact -- needless to say that was not backed up with the polling data).

The rest is history. Now we're left with this shadow of a man. I'll be very interested in the VP pick (the most important VP pick in history, in my view), and what further concessions he makes to Sanders' voters.

[#####] has a point. DNC made a big mistake putting Biden up.

Probability is the language of science. There is no proof; there are no absolute certainties. Scientists are always aware that new data may overturn old theories and that human knowledge is constantly evolving. Consequently, it is viewed as unjustifiable hubris to ever claim one’s findings as unassailable.

But in general, the older and more established a given theory becomes, the less and less likely it is that any new finding will drastically change things. Even the huge revolution in physics brought on by Einstein’s theory of relativity did not render Newton’s theories of classical mechanics useless. Classical mechanics is still used all the time; it is, quite simply, good enough for most purposes.

But how well established is the greenhouse effect?

Greenhouse effect theory is over 100 years old. The first predictions of anthropogenic global warming came in 1896. Time has only strengthened and refined those groundbreaking conclusions. We now have decades of very detailed and sophisticated climate observations, and super computers crunching numbers in one second it would have taken a million 19th century scientists years with a slide rule to match. Even so, you will never ever get a purely scientific source saying “the future is certain.”

But what certainty there is about the basic issue is close enough to 100 percent that for all practical purposes it should be taken as 100 percent. Don’t wait any longer for scientific certainty; we are there. Every major institute that deals with climate-related science is saying AGW is here and real and dangerous, even though they will not remove the “very likely” and “strongly indicated” qualifiers. The translation of what the science is saying into the language of the public is this: Global warming is definitely happening and it is definitely because of human activities and it will definitely continue as long as CO2 keeps rising in the atmosphere.

The rest of the issue — how high will the temperature go, how fast will it get there, and how bad will this be — is much less certain. But no rational human being rushes headlong into an unknown when there is even a 10 percent chance of death or serious injury. Why should we demand 100 percent certainty before avoiding this danger? Science has given the human race a dire warning with all the urgency and certainty we should need to prompt action.

We don’t have time or reason to wait any longer.
___________

The above is from a climatologist, as well. Your arguments are so predictable I can literally copy and paste ready-made responses, because so many ignoramuses make them.

It's quite pathetic. (I know I shouldn't "shame" people, but this level of ignorance is just astounding. The logic used to justify it is even more staggering.)

No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.

This is where there is a consensus.
— Xtrix

And? Consensus is a fallacy. There was no debate over whether Newtonian mechanics was false, until Einstein... and Quantum Theory. — h060tu

There was plenty of debate about Newton's theories, but the evidence was overwhelming. Nor was it proven "wrong" by Einstein or quantum theory. Not even close. Leave your simplistic Nickelodeon ideas of the history of science for Twitter.

There was no debate whether Ptolemaic Astronomy was false.. until Copernicus. You can say "there's no debate" but it doesn't mean a damn thing. Honestly. — h060tu

It does mean something -- it means there's overwhelming evidence, which should be taken seriously by ignoramuses like you. Or you can side with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who are in your camp.

Regardless, what is your evidence that explains the data, then? What's the alternative that you're offering?

Anyway, economic and sociology, LIKE climate science, LIKE biology, LIKE physics, pretends purports to be scientific. — h060tu

Ohhh, I see...tell me more!

I'm asking you, how on Earth are you going to accept one of these as "science" and the rest as not. Or do you? I'm asking you what your criteria is, and how do you demarcate it? — h060tu

I'm interested in evidence which, in this case, is overwhelming. If you want to debate Keynesian economic policy and its effectiveness, that's fine -- but that's not climatology.

You don't want to answer because you don't have an answer. You cannot establish what is science. You don't even know what science even is. — h060tu

I never claimed to. In fact I have another thread going right now that discusses the nature of science. But who cares? We're talking about evidence, not the philosophy of science.

But you're assuming because climate is changing, a bunch of these claims which you'd assumed and not provided any reason to believe they are genuine are also true. That's not the case. — h060tu

The climate is changing, and at a rate beyond natural variability. The reason it's changing is because of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from fossil fuel use and deforestation, etc. This isn't complicated. The predictions that were made (and documented) in the last 20 years or so have proven remarkably accurate, although they were often too optimistic. This has been extensively documented for years -- and I'm sure you've read all about it.

No, I'm saying that there is no neutrality when it comes to looking at the world. The Chinese Communist Party could be correct, that's fine. I'm not making an ad hominem, just because they're communists doesn't make them wrong. But I'm pointing out that Wikipedia is not a neutral source. Nothing is. — h060tu

Gotcha.

What study might that be, exactly?
— Xtrix

The one you pretended to know about. — h060tu

Which was what? Or are you the one pretending?

You can continue to say that, but you're wrong. And that's because you can't reason. You allow your emotions to drive your interpretation of the evidence and the world. — h060tu

Ah, thanks Dr. Freud. Nailed it. I guess I WANT to believe that the climate is changing at an alarming rate because of my "death instinct"? Definitely not the extensive, overwhelming evidence from thousands of scientists around the global that have studied this their whole lives.

I'll go with an ignoramus on the Philosophy Forum! He has the "real" truth! Just like Donald Trump does. Everything else is "fake news."

Climate change is happening. Yes. It always has. It always will. I've never said otherwise. I'm not arguing that climate doesn't change. — h060tu

Ah, there it is. The new denialist line: "the climate is always changing!"

But don't take it from me:

"So technically that's true. The climate has always been changing. But for various reasons, the current change that we're experiencing now is particularly alarming, and that is because in the history of human civilization, the climate has never changed this rapidly. And that's really what concerns scientists. It's not the fact that there is change, but it's the speed of that change."
--STEPHANIE HERRING, climatologist

Bottom line -- 97% (that's misleading -- it's closer to 100%) of climatologists accept climate change is a fact, that we're the cause of it, and that we need to take major steps to do something about it. But you go with Lindzen, by all means.
— Xtrix

No they don't. That number is from a comic book writer. It's fallacious. — h060tu

Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect.

No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.

This is where there is a consensus.

Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can’t be sure the earth isn’t hollow either.

This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by …

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
… in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?

I question them all because they are all equally suspect, none of them have made a sufficient case to doxastically believe in. None. That's it. — h060tu

Because climate science is "model based"?

Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places — in England, for example — that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.

These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:

NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
CRU direct surface temperature analysis

Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:

Satellite Data
Radiosondes
Borehole analysis
Glacial melt observations
Sea ice melt
Sea level rise
Proxy Reconstructions
Permafrost melt

There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.

I already explained my view, and you don't understand it. My view is agnosticism. I don't subscribe to ideologies and positions, all knowledge is tentative and always changing. Same as anything. — h060tu

Good for you. I myself am agnostic about gravity and whether the Earth really is flat. Who knows? Things change. I'm also agnostic about God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I'm not a "climate denier" nor am I a "climate skeptic" nor am I a "climate activist" I am not any of these things. — h060tu

You're a climate denier. You've already made that quite clear. You've used standard denialist lines, when asked to cite any sources you provided two well-known climate "skeptics," ignore or dismiss NASA and the IPCC (and apparently even Wikipedia) because of some conspiracy claims about the government, say climate science is based on 'models,' etc.

The fact is that the evidence of climate change is overwhelming. It's already happening, and will continue to get worse unless major changes are enacted. There's consensus from scientists all over the world on this. The evidence is clear and easily understood if we care to understand it, which you clearly do not.

No, I accept things that have overwhelming evidence -- like a spherical Earth, like that the holocaust happened, like evolution, like gravity, like climate change. Economic or sociology theories have nothing to do with this, although there are some solid ideas even in those fields as well.

Now you're just babbling nonsense. Why "hypothesis" are you talking about? There's overwhelming evidence for the effects climate change will have. It's only a matter of degree, which will depend on whether we act or not. We're already seeing the effects, which are WORSE than the scientists predicted years ago.
— Xtrix

No, there isn't. Because it has not happened yet. — h060tu

It has happened, it's happening already. Look at the last 10 hottest years on record. This year is shaping up to be one of the hottest as well.

Not what might be the case based on models, predictions, hand waving, media personalities, documentaries, alarmism and a autistic 16 year old. — h060tu

Typical climate denial lines. Yawn.

No, there's evidence to back them up -- overwhelming evidence which, once it's explained to you, is more than convincing. All you have to do is make a little effort. Even a simple wikipedia search is fine. Or are they part of the global conspiracy too?
— Xtrix

Right, because Google, Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, the Chinese Communist Party and several others who donate to Wikipedia don't have any influence at all over the content that might be adduced there. None. — h060tu

LOL. Oh, so they ARE a part of the global conspiracy? Interesting. Tell me more, Dr. Science.

You've already given yourself away buddy. You've proven you only read fringe bullshit about climate change. This is yet another example.
— Xtrix

No. I've read NOAA, I actually have it bookmarked LOL I just don't believe your claims because you have absolutely nothing to substantiate them. Only rhetoric. — h060tu

Glad you've "read NOAA." Was that the book? lol.

That actual study says nothing about antropogenic climate change. It talks about climate change without qualification. When you actually break down the study into the various ways in which scientists think what is causing climate change, the numbers go way below 70%. I know the study, and it doesn't corroborate anthropogenic climate change. — h060tu

What study might that be, exactly?

No, they're worth my time. I've read both, in fact. I've given sources that go over their points thoroughly. I'd be glad to go over their lies here as well.
— Xtrix

No you haven't. — h060tu

I haven't what? Jesus you're a horrible writer.

Bottom line -- 97% (that's misleading -- it's closer to 100%) of climatologists accept climate change is a fact, that we're the cause of it, and that we need to take major steps to do something about it. But you go with Lindzen, by all means.
— Xtrix

No they don't. That number is from a comic book writer. It's fallacious. — h060tu

You've already given yourself away buddy. You've proven you only read fringe bullshit about climate change. This is yet another example.

The 97% number was popularized by two articles, the first by Naomi Oreskes, now Professor of Science History and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, and the second by a group of authors led by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland.

It's been attacked by climate deniers like yourself, but later studies have corroborated it. It's based on published articles on climate change, thousands of them. There have also been extensive polling done. Even if the number is 90%, which is extremely unlikely, to have this level of consensus in science is rare. It really tells you something about the level of evidence.

But that's fine -- you ignore NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, the Royal Academy, the entire MIT climatology department (besides Lindzen), etc.. and keep on believing whatever you want to believe.

I never "swallowed" anything. His view is one view. IPCC is another. — h060tu

Lol. Right, just like creationists have "one side" and "evolutionists" have another view. Or, better, flat-earthers have a view and NASA has another view. Both totally plausible.

For that matter, the homeless man screaming about Jesus has a view too. Maybe you should cite him as a source?

Until there is evidence that can establish the likelihood of one hypothesis over the other, then there is underdetermination of hypothesis. — h060tu

Now you're just babbling nonsense. Why "hypothesis" are you talking about? There's overwhelming evidence for the effects climate change will have. It's only a matter of degree, which will depend on whether we act or not. We're already seeing the effects, which are WORSE than the scientists predicted years ago.

You assume that because I question your assumptions, that I am a "denier" I am not a "denier" I am Agnostic on the question. — h060tu

On what question?

I don't know, and neither do you and neither do they. There's a just a lot of claims, and nothing to back them up. — h060tu

No, there's evidence to back them up -- overwhelming evidence which, once it's explained to you, is more than convincing. All you have to do is make a little effort. Even a simple wikipedia search is fine. Or are they part of the global conspiracy too?

No, they're very alarmed indeed. Rightfully so.
— Xtrix

They're really not. — h060tu

And you definitely know, because you're so very informed.

So I think I see where this non-discussion is going. More mouthing off by science ignoramuses who think they know more than people that have studied this their entire lives because they've spent a few minutes thinking about the subject. It's embarrassing.
— Xtrix

Yeah, that's what you're doing. — h060tu

No, I've studied this for years actually.

I cited two climate scientists who agree with me. — h060tu

Yes, you've found two climate deniers who agree with you. There are a handful of others, too. I can find them for you if you'd like. But I asked for credible sources.

LOL So scientists you disagree with are not worth your time, only ones that already confirm your preconceived bias. That's amazing. — h060tu

No, they're worth my time. I've read both, in fact. I've given sources that go over their points thoroughly. I'd be glad to go over their lies here as well.

Yeah, this conversation is over. You're just a propagandist, an ideological robot. That's fine, but I'm wasting my time talking. My time is important, yours not so much. — h060tu

Yes, smart move. Word of advice: next time, keep your mouth shut when you don't know what you're talking about. A little research goes a long way.

Bottom line -- 97% (that's misleading -- it's closer to 100%) of climatologists accept climate change is a fact, that we're the cause of it, and that we need to take major steps to do something about it. But you go with Lindzen, by all means.

The government is not a source. There was a "source" about WMDs in Iraq. It's fake. I don't the government "data" on anything. Economics, WMDs, their secret programs and operations destroying other people's countries, creating false flags, lying to the American people, infiltrating groups and manipulating events, mind control programs. Yeah, no. I don't trust the government "data" unless it's methodology is sound. If the methodology is sound, I'll believe it. But I don't take government data at face value. — h060tu

The IPCC is not the US government, it's a number of research institutes and thousands of scientists.

Good to see you're very skeptical about things, yet swallow the bullshit of Lindzen wholesale. Interesting. :roll:

Richard Lindzen at MIT. — h060tu

LOL. Oh, what a shocker. A well known (and well used by deniers) "skeptic." This is your example? Pathetic. Maybe read up on these people before spouting nonsense:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

A number of his lies and distortions are well-documented, point by point.

I'm not an expert, but he is. And I haven't studied climate science as a layman, in years. So I don't really want to have a debate on this. — h060tu

Good, very wise to keep your mouth shut about things you don't understand.

Another book I read was by a Swedish guy named Bjorn Lomborg — h060tu

So two climate change deniers. This is what you read? Not the IPCC, not NASA, not NOAA, not the thousands of climatologists out there studying this -- you quote two well known liars (Lomborg less so, although his distortions are incredible as well -- although he's been promoted by imbeciles like Jordan Peterson).

I'm not an expert, but there's a lot of alarmism going on. Elizabeth Kolbert, who wrote The Sixth Extinction a massive alarmist tome, is a journalist, not a scientist. There are other such books and misinfo/disinfo out there. — h060tu

I agree -- Kolbert shouldn't be view as a credible source either. But it's ironic you say that many books of misinformation is out there, after just citing two yourself.

Well, there's a scientist at MIT who's name currently escapes me — h060tu

One scientist who you don't remember.

Your article was about CO2. — h060tu

Can't read.

CO2 emissions are not even remotely the only, or even the primary driver of climate change. — h060tu

Spinner of straw.

those number of projections are based on completely faulty and speculative models of how climate has evolved — h060tu

Most climate data is based on tree rings and glacial mass, — h060tu

Ridiculous claims without any evidence or sources. This last one is especially egregious.

So I think I see where this non-discussion is going. More mouthing off by science ignoramuses who think they know more than people that have studied this their entire lives because they've spent a few minutes thinking about the subject. It's embarrassing.

Most climate data is based on tree rings and glacial mass,
— h060tu

Wrong. — Xtrix

And in fact, the only real good solid data on climate that we have is only since the Industrial Revolution.
— h060tu

Completely wrong. — Xtrix

Completely correct. — h060tu

No, completely wrong. Saying the "only real good solid data" is embarrassing. There's a number of excellent sources of data on the climate, which you would know if you deigned to read anything about the subject.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Lol. Right, and you know because you're a climatologist. Please explain where these "models" go wrong. I myself would love to know -- as I'm sure most climate scientists would as well.
— Xtrix

They already know. Most climate scientists aren't alarmists. — h060tu

No, they're very alarmed indeed. Rightfully so.

No one is arguing this. Pure straw-man.
— Xtrix

Not really. — h060tu

Yes, really. No one -- not myself, not anything I've cited, is arguing CO2 is the only driver of climate change. It's a complete straw man.

Your article was about CO2. — h060tu

No, it isn't. CO2 is one factor involved, yes. There are others -- including energy sources, energy consumption, climate policy, etc. etc.

What "actual scientists" are you referring to, exactly? Please name one.
— Xtrix

Well, there's a scientist at MIT who's name currently escapes me, but I'll gladly look for his name for you. — h060tu

Please do, and if you can point me to where he says we'll "easily survive."

No, they won't "tell you" because there are a number of projections which depend on what we do now.
— Xtrix

Yes, and those number of projections are based on completely faulty and speculative models of how climate has evolved. — h060tu

Lol. Right, and you know because you're a climatologist. Please explain where these "models" go wrong. I myself would love to know -- as I'm sure most climate scientists would as well.

Most climate data is based on tree rings and glacial mass, — h060tu

Wrong.

And in fact, the only real good solid data on climate that we have is only since the Industrial Revolution. — h060tu

Completely wrong.

They can, and they have.
— Xtrix

CO2 emissions are not even remotely the only, or even the primary driver of climate change. And in fact, not even among greenhouse gases.

CO2's role is very overplayed. Methane gas might be worse. — h060tu

No one is arguing this. Pure straw-man.

Yes, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas, but doesn't last nearly as long as CO2. There's also plenty of other factors of climate change, as you mentioned. Deforestation, agricultural practices, energy sources, industry, etc. All major contributors. What's your point?

If other countries can do it, so can we
— Xtrix

But they can't do it. — h060tu

They can, and they have.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/09/climate-change-report-card-co2-emissions/

"If we want to survive?" We'll survive climate change easily. Talk to any climate scientist, like actual ones, not activists, and they'll tell you. Sure, it will have an effect, but it's definitely not the hottest climate in the whole history of the climate, and it's also not cataclysmic. — h060tu

No, they won't "tell you" because there are a number of projections which depend on what we do now. If we do remain with the status quo -- we're toast. Sure, maybe we survive somehow. Maybe some people survive nuclear war too. Not saying much.

Take a look at tipping points and see what happens to food supplies alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

What "actual scientists" are you referring to, exactly? Please name one.

I've changed my mind. "Organizing" and "activism" are stoopid. Better to be a political hobbyist.

But make sure you don't vote Biden, because doing so means you're a sell-out, or that you like the guy. It also won't teach the DNC a very important lesson!

Here's to another 4 years of Donald Trump! (Sure, our kids and grandkids won't have a planet that's habitable, but at least we will have proven a point -- one that requires no mental or physical effort or risk of any kind.)

Joe Biden's policies on the environment vs. Trumps:

The Biden Plan will:

Ensure the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050. On day one, Biden will sign a series of new executive orders with unprecedented reach that go well beyond the Obama-Biden Administration platform and put us on the right track. And, he will demand that Congress enacts legislation in the first year of his presidency that: 1) establishes an enforcement mechanism that includes milestone targets no later than the end of his first term in 2025, 2) makes a historic investment in clean energy and climate research and innovation, 3) incentivizes the rapid deployment of clean energy innovations across the economy, especially in communities most impacted by climate change.

Build a stronger, more resilient nation. On day one, Biden will make smart infrastructure investments to rebuild the nation and to ensure that our buildings, water, transportation, and energy infrastructure can withstand the impacts of climate change. Every dollar spent toward rebuilding our roads, bridges, buildings, the electric grid, and our water infrastructure will be used to prevent, reduce, and withstand a changing climate. As President, Biden will use the convening power of government to boost climate resilience efforts by developing regional climate resilience plans, in partnership with local universities and national labs, for local access to the most relevant science, data, information, tools, and training.

Rally the rest of the world to meet the threat of climate change. Climate change is a global challenge that requires decisive action from every country around the world. Joe Biden knows how to stand with America’s allies, stand up to adversaries, and level with any world leader about what must be done. He will not only recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement on climate change – he will go much further than that. He will lead an effort to get every major country to ramp up the ambition of their domestic climate targets. He will make sure those commitments are transparent and enforceable, and stop countries from cheating by using America’s economic leverage and power of example. He will fully integrate climate change into our foreign policy and national security strategies, as well as our approach to trade.

Stand up to the abuse of power by polluters who disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities. Vulnerable communities are disproportionately impacted by the climate emergency and pollution. The Biden Administration will take action against fossil fuel companies and other polluters who put profit over people and knowingly harm our environment and poison our communities’ air, land, and water, or conceal information regarding potential environmental and health risks. The Biden plan will ensure that communities across the country from Flint, Michigan to Harlan, Kentucky to the New Hampshire Seacoast have access to clean, safe drinking water. And he’ll make sure the development of solutions is an inclusive, community-driven process.
Fulfill our obligation to workers and communities who powered our industrial revolution and subsequent decades of economic growth. This is support they’ve earned for fueling our country’s industrial revolution and decades of economic growth. We’re not going to leave any workers or communities behind. —

Eh, sounds good but could be just a bunch of nice words.

Now Trump's climate change plan: "It's a Chinese hoax."

Trump's environmental record so far:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/


Just for anyone still wondering if there's a discernible "difference" between the two candidates.

"If Trump is re-elected, it's an indescribable disaster. It means that the policies of the last four years, which have been extremely destructive to the American population and the world, will be continued and probably accelerated. What this will mean for health is bad enough. What this means for the environment and the threat of nuclear war (which no one is talking about, but which is extremely serious) is indescribable.

Suppose Biden is elected. I would anticipate it would be essentially a continuation of Obama -- nothing very great, but at least not totally destructive, and with opportunities for an organized public to change what's being done and to impose pressures.

It's common to say now that the Sanders campaigned failed. I think that's a mistake. I think it was an extraordinary success. Completely shifted the arena of debate and discussion, issues that were unthinkable a couple of years ago are now right in the middle of attention. The worst crime he committed in the eyes of the establishment is not the policies he was proposing, it was the fact that he was able to inspire popular movements (which had already been developing --e.g., Occupy, Black Lives Matter, many others) and turned them into an activist movement which doesn't just show up every couple years to pull a lever and then go home, but applies constant pressure and constant activism.

That could effect a Biden administration. We've seen some striking examples. Take the Green New Deal. A couple of years ago that was an object of ridicule if it was mentioned at all. Now it's part of the general agenda. Why? Activist engagement. Especially the Sunrise Movement [...]

With a Biden presidency there would be if not a strongly sympathetic administration at least one that can be reached, can be pressured -- and that's very important. There's a very good labor historian, Erik Loomis, who's studied the efforts by working people to institute changes in the society...he's made an interesting point: these efforts have succeeded when there was a tolerant or sympathetic administration, not when there wasn't. That's a big -- one of many -- enormous differences between Trump, a sociopath, and Biden -- who's pretty empty, can push him one way or another.

This is the most crucial election in human history, literally. Another four years of Trump and we're in deep trouble."


The above is from Noam Chomsky.

But what does he (or Sanders) know anyway? Better to teach the DNC a lesson (they didn't learn the first time) through voting, thus winning on two fronts: (1) DNC doesn't change at all, and (2) taking out our frustrations by pushing a button without having to engage in that messy "activism" business -- as that is risky and takes sustained effort. The choice is obvious -- to hell with the world! Let is burn. At least our "point" will be made and we'll feel righteous. Because only suckers and sellouts like Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky will vote for Biden.

:roll:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htQKz-nB2Dg

Let me know when you conduct this experiment. I wish you the best of luck, but I won't hold my breath. Personally I think it's a waste of time. But in any case, the point stands: there's no evidence for your claim. So why say it? That's not scientifically sound either.
— Xtrix

Why ask me for an appeal to authority when you can just dismiss it as an appeal to authority? — VagabondSpectre

That's why I said an authority that provides evidence which I could check.

You opened the post by bringing up an ill-defined anecdote about how scientists say their god is nature (do you need me to quote everything line by line?), — VagabondSpectre

As I've shown repeatedly, that's not what I said. I mentioned someone once saying "I believe in God, I just call it nature" to demonstrate the place "nature" plays in modern science. It wasn't to be taken literally as scientists believing in a "God of nature."

What do you think scientists meant by "nature" and "god", and why is that relevant to why natural philosophy dominates every other understanding in today's world? — VagabondSpectre

Natural philosophy is what science used to be called. The point is that nature is what science studies. So the question is a good one: "What is nature" (or what is meant by "nature)? That's exactly what I'm exploring here.

Isn't it possible that modern science is not dominated by Cartesian or natural philosophy? — VagabondSpectre

Cartesianism, sure. But science is natural philosophy, so I don't see how it could or couldn't be "dominated" by it.

No one can offer a definition that shows Aristarchus wasn't doing science but Galileo was, for example, so who cares?
— Xtrix

Why do you get to get to ask me to prove an unending series of negatives? First you'll goad me into showing Aristarchus wasn't doing science, then you can just keep pulling random names out of a hat until I get too tired to carry on... — VagabondSpectre

"Unending"? I keep bringing it up because you continually fail to address it, and it's important. As far as "random names":I've mentioned Aristarchus over and over again. That's not random name-dropping. It's a simple question: Was he doing "science" or not?

If some ancient philosopher based their epistemological framework around the predictive power of their mathematical or explanatory models, then maybe they employing the modern scientific method to some extent. But really, who cares? — VagabondSpectre

Exactly: who cares? Thus, who really cares about a fuzzy "modern method" in the first place? If it's modern, yet Aristarchus was doing it, is it still modern?

The experimental evidence is in our face phenomenon... — VagabondSpectre


That's not what you said. You said:

You're looking at it backward actually. QM and GR are "in our face" phenomenon that we cannot deny. — VagabondSpectre


So quantum mechanics and general relativity are "experimental evidence" now? That's completely meaningless as well.
— Xtrix

I'm having a hard time comprehending what you're trying to say here. "In our face phenomenon" refers to the experimental observations that force us to accept GR and QM as strong models. — VagabondSpectre

So experimental observations, not GR and QM themselves -- which is meaningless. That's fine. But take a look at what you said: you said "QM and GR are 'in our face phenomenon.'" If that's just a poorly worded sentence, not a big deal. But why continue to argue it?

If you think you have a "gotch'ya" here, you don't. You're just be semantically obtuse or else misunderstanding. — VagabondSpectre

It's not semantics or a misunderstanding, it's a simple fact of what you said, which is completely meaningless. To repeat, again: "QM and GR are 'in our face phenomenon.'" That's MEANINGLESS. To say the data, the evidence, the observations and experiments are "in our face phenomena" is one thing -- to say the theories themselves are is meaningless.

There's no "gotchya" here. I get what you mean now, but before it wasn't at all clear. All that's required in that case is to simply say "I typed that wrong" and move on. Yet since you continue to argue it, I'll continue to as well: the statement was meaningless. Quantum mechanics is not "in your face phenomenon," it's an explanatory theory.

No, you contrasted "rationality" by conflating it with "rationalism" (hence why you mentioned Descartes) which is completely wrong. Inductive reasoning already assumes reason (it's right there in the word), and hence rationality - ratio is Latin, which translates as "reason."
— Xtrix

Have you ever heard of the "etymological fallacy"? It's sort of similar to equivocation; definitely an excellent source of wanton misinterpretation... — VagabondSpectre

There's no misinterpretation. You're simply conflating the two terms.

You're trying to win the argument by somehow showing that I am technically incorrect, when you have not seem to understood or addressed the statement I have made. Even if my critique of Descartes has been unfair (not giving him enough credit as a scientist, I guess), you're still not actually addressing my position; you're just rejecting it out of hand. — VagabondSpectre

What argument?

Science uses reason, rationality, logic, etc. That's not a controversial or "technical" point and it's not trying to "win" anything. I doubt anyone is reading any of this, and I don't care about "winning" anyway -- it's a silly way to look at conversations.

Your argument has been that science is special, especially modern science, and is distinct from other activities by use of the "inductive method." I've heard this argument many times before -- it's not unreasonable. It has a long history. But you're hardly making a strong case, I'm afraid. This isn't ad hominem.

It's especially difficult to explore that position when I get bogged down in corrections which I shouldn't have to correct -- whether about rationality or about data/theory or about Aristarchus's science.

Once again, just to be clear, modern science employs an inherently inductive method to actually confirm and usefully deploy its models in the real world; that's what has let it advance so much compared to less strictly focused schools — VagabondSpectre

So this is how you present an argument, by simply repeating yourself over and over without evidence? Fine. I've already shown, multiple times, why the above statement is completely wrong. Obviously you don't agree, and that's fine. Like I said before, I don't care if there really turns out to be a special method or not. Maybe someone will show me one day that there is.

If I were you though, in the future I'd watch words like "advance" and "progress." That's value-laden. We've advanced as a species quite a lot, in many ways. So if it's a matter of rate, how do we measure this? You've proposed some experiments to find out, and I welcome you to it. In the meantime, it's just empty, unconvincing statements.

So what is the point of this thread again? I know you feel you have been amply clear, but just indulge me. — VagabondSpectre

I don't feel that way, no. You prove me wrong over and over again in that respect.

The point of this thread is to explore the Greek understanding of being ('phusis') and to trace the evolution from this soil to the modern world (and the ontology of modern science).

"Nature" and "physics" have their etymological roots in the word "phusis." Science in Galileo's time was called "natural philosophy" (the philosophy of nature). Modern scientists often claim (though it's true this is only from what I've heard and read, not based on a survey of any kind) that they study nature (which I didn't think was a controversial point) and so it's worth asking what that means now as well.

So the connection goes: phusis -> naturalism, naturalism -> scientific practice? In what regard is phusis a basis for scientific practice if it bears some connection to the current ontology of science? — fdrake

Ontological basis. You're right, that may not have been clear initially, but that's what I'm talking about. Not scientific practice.

Just having fun. Dickless means well, I'm sure. But I have low tolerance for people who outright refuse to learn.

The regulation of financing regulates the speech. — Hanover

Yes, the "speech" of buying elections. Brilliant.

I actually went to the Biden site where he lists out his positions. If I had to pick what I didn't particularly like, it would relate to raising taxes specifically on the wealthy and corporations, because I'm tired of the class warfare, which is how this usually plays out. He wants to study the idea of reparations, which I find horribly polarizing and unjust. That alone will cost him my vote. He had an entirely hands off stance with China, and I do see them as a threat and concern. I'm not in principle opposed to tariffs as he is. I didn't like his idea of raising teacher's salaries, as I don't follow how the federal government should have a hand in that very (very very) local issue. He's in favor of 2 years of free college education, which in principle sounds good, but that sounds again like a state issue, considering different state institutions charge differently and private colleges are much more expensive. I'm also opposed to campaign finance reform because I'm close to an absolutist on free speech. His objections to drilling for oil I largely disagree with. — Hanover

"Absolutist on free speech" is the reason to be against finance reform for campaigns?

At least I know now to ignore everything you say.

I think you're grossly overestimating what other countries are doing. I live in one of the more progressive countries in the world. It's not enough. Corona lock down will be a joke compared to the costs we will be confronted with once climate change really hits. I've already started looking for a plot of land with enough arable land, a self-sufficient modular home and I'll be advising my kids to study agriculture. — Benkei

There's nowhere to go or hide from climate change. That's pure delusion.

Helping elect Trump all but guarantees we're going over the edge. We have to make our decisions with this in mind.

DNC lackey. — StreetlightX

Maybe you've learnt one too many lessons from Trump. — StreetlightX

You offer literal contradictions and expect to be taken seriously. What a joke. — StreetlightX

You're a sucker and everyone but you knows it. — StreetlightX

5.1k
Frank was reduced to babbling insults — StreetlightX

Hmmm...

Frank was reduced to babbling insults and this guy reduced to, well, the same.

It's like people who support Biden are totally incapable of coherent argumentation.

Which makes sense. There's no there there. — StreetlightX

Yeah, that's the reason. :)

God they must love people like you. — StreetlightX

Yeah, I'm awful I agree. Now by all means go get Trump elected again.

What about climate change? Do you seriously believe governments and corporations and people are competent enough to make a difference? — h060tu

Yes. If other countries can do it, so can we. Corporations, no -- at least not the ones involved in fossil fuels, of course. And not governments that say it's a Chinese hoax. But otherwise, yes it can be done and has to be done if we want to survive.