David Suzuki: Attacks on climate-chan...

David Suzuki: Attacks on climate-change science hinder solutions

There are 11 comments on the The Georgia Straight story from Sep 24, 2013, titled David Suzuki: Attacks on climate-change science hinder solutions. In it, The Georgia Straight reports that:

September, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will release its Fifth Assessment Report in three chapters and a summary.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Georgia Straight.

dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#1 Sep 24, 2013
This seems like a very unscientific attitude.

Following David's logic: attacks on Ptolemaic geocentrism by Nicolaus Copernicus is a hindrance to science.
SpaceBlues

United States

#2 Sep 24, 2013
“The combination of weather, climate and decision-making is the new major direction in meteorology,” Brune said.“Jobs in the weather service alone are shrinking. Private-sector businesses are increasingly hiring weather professionals.

“We want to teach our students how to help a company predict how the weather can affect their business and then be able to tell them the best course of action. We’re working on making sure our students will get employed in these emerging fields by keeping our department on the forefront.”

The only staff unique to the center is Titley, but he said a number of the department’s faculty are working closely with him, and he said faculty in the colleges of engineering and science are interested in participating.

The center is working with similar weather risk centers at other colleges, in particular at Columbia and Princeton, to examine how to best sell their services to the private sector, according to Titley. Startup funding was provided by the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences and the department, and there is a $4 million fundraising goal.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/09/24/3804204...
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#3 Sep 25, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
This seems like a very unscientific attitude.
Science is about 'what works', which denial doesn't, so it is a very scientific attitude, though the science is sociology or mass media relation.
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
Following David's logic: attacks on Ptolemaic geocentrism by Nicolaus Copernicus is a hindrance to science.
Non-sequitur. Attacks of denial of Nicolaus Copernicus to retain Ptolemaic geocentrism ( analogy of fossil fuels) is a hindrance to science, but not because of POPULARITY but because Copernicus had the SCIENCE. If geocentrism had any FACTS on it's side, then you might be correct. Science is about what works and fits the DATA, not about which SIDE you are 'on'.

As usual, you substitute 'popularity' and 'stutus quo' for actually looking at which position IS science.
dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#5 Sep 25, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is about 'what works', which denial doesn't, so it is a very scientific attitude, though the science is sociology or mass media relation.
<quoted text>
Non-sequitur. Attacks of denial of Nicolaus Copernicus to retain Ptolemaic geocentrism ( analogy of fossil fuels) is a hindrance to science, but not because of POPULARITY but because Copernicus had the SCIENCE.

If geocentrism had any FACTS on it's side, then you might be correct. Science is about what works and fits the DATA, not about which SIDE you are 'on'.
As usual, you substitute 'popularity' and 'stutus quo' for actually looking at which position IS science.
Frankly, the first sentence is completely beyond my comprehension.

The rest seems to somehow relate to "facts" and "status quo".

The Status Quo (currently CAGW Orthodoxy) is clearly the corollary to Ptolemaic geocentrism prior to Copernicus. This makes Copernicus (and eventually Galileo Galilei) the "hindrance to science" to which David was referring.

Bottom line:
CAGW = Orthodoxy
Deniers(scepticism)= hindrance to science
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#6 Sep 25, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankly, the first sentence is completely beyond my comprehension.
All science is beyond your comprehension. As are clear statements about science.
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
The rest seems to somehow relate to "facts" and "status quo".
Correct. At least you can recognise words, even if you can not comprehend them. Science is about the facts and data. That may be on the side of the 'status quo'(*), in your analogy Ptolemaic geocentrism' or the 'sceptic' scientist, in this case Gallileo.

(*). This was not a scientific theory so your analogy is flawed. Gallileo was the first SCIENTIFIC look at the data.
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
The Status Quo (currently CAGW Orthodoxy) is clearly the corollary to Ptolemaic geocentrism prior to Copernicus.
Just as clearly it isn't. AGW theory is the 'newcomer' here. It is displacing the 'god will fix it' or 'there is no problem, pollute all you want' orthodoxy.
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
This makes Copernicus (and eventually Galileo Galilei) the "hindrance to science" to which David was referring.
The science (Gallileo) is never a hindrance to itself. But you obviously have a problem understanding which is science and which is not.
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Bottom line:
CAGW = Orthodoxy
Deniers(scepticism)= hindrance to science
Bottom line. You are an idiot. Skepticism and orthodoxy are both part of science and they are hardly at war with themselves. At the present, AGW is the orthodoxy as it is theory, but it was the 'sceptical' opinion in science prior to the IPCC collating the science.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#7 Sep 25, 2013
Oh, And 'catastrophic' is not part of the name. It is an attempt by denialists to confuse the issue with demagoguery. Science doesn't CARE what the consequences are. It will list them or project them if you ask, but science does it only as needed by the relevant governmental authority.

It is up to government to determine whether there will be action or inaction or a combination on the issue. And it is up to government to say if it is a crisis.

Value judgements are NOT a part of the scientific process although some scientists will comment AS CITIZENS.
B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#8 Sep 25, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
AGW theory is the 'newcomer' here. It is displacing the....'pollute all you want' orthodoxy.<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Bottom line. You are an idiot. At the present, AGW is the orthodoxy....
Sometimes I am simply in awe of the way your mind works
SpaceBlues

United States

#9 Sep 26, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>To another:

All science is beyond your comprehension. As are clear statements about science.
<quoted text>
Correct. At least you can recognise words, even if you can not comprehend them. Science is about the facts and data. That may be on the side of the 'status quo'(*), in your analogy Ptolemaic geocentrism' or the 'sceptic' scientist, in this case Gallileo.
(*). This was not a scientific theory so your analogy is flawed. Gallileo was the first SCIENTIFIC look at the data.
<quoted text>
Just as clearly it isn't. AGW theory is the 'newcomer' here. It is displacing the 'god will fix it' or 'there is no problem, pollute all you want' orthodoxy.
<quoted text>
The science (Gallileo) is never a hindrance to itself. But you obviously have a problem understanding which is science and which is not.
<quoted text>
Bottom line. You are an idiot. Skepticism and orthodoxy are both part of science and they are hardly at war with themselves. At the present, AGW is the orthodoxy as it is theory, but it was the 'sceptical' opinion in science prior to the IPCC collating the science.
Excellent.

Except for the bit about Galileo. The people who developed the clock, chemistry, etc.. the Muslims had the mastery of data first. Read a lot about Ibn-Sina, for example.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#10 Sep 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Excellent.
Except for the bit about Galileo. The people who developed the clock, chemistry, etc.. the Muslims had the mastery of data first. Read a lot about Ibn-Sina, for example.
I am well aware that the Renaissance was driven by the preservation and extension of Greek Philosophy and Math in the Muslim Middle East during the 'Dark Ages', mostly transferred by the Moorish invasion of Spain.

I am also aware that key inventions such as the zero, algebra, many crop vegetables (i.e. carrots, coffee, etc from Ethiopia, etc) and the scientific method were discovered and promoted by the Middle East cultures of the time. The crop change were probably one of the key innovations as better nutrition lead to brighter minds.

You know the one about teaching others to suck eggs?
litesong

Everett, WA

#11 Sep 26, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
in your analogy Ptolemaic geocentrism' or the 'sceptic' scientist, in this case Gallileo...... Gallileo was the first SCIENTIFIC look at the data.
/////////
SpaceBlues wrote:
Except for the bit about Galileo. The people who developed the clock, chemistry, etc.. the Muslims had the mastery of data first. Read a lot about Ibn-Sina, for example.
//////////
litesong wrote:
Tho Galileo may have had the first SCIENTIFIC look, it was Johannes Kepler, using the ultra precise observations of Tycho Brahe, who mathematically determined that the sun belonged at the center of the solar system. Not only did Kepler show that a geocentric solar system was wrong, but due to his unswerving dedication to meticulous truth, Kepler even determined that planetary orbits were not circles but ellipses as they revolved around the sun, according to his 3 Laws of planetary motion. Not till Sir Isaac Newton's gravitational laws, were Kepler's blend of Brahe's observation & intuitive mathematics rigorously derived.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#12 Sep 26, 2013
litesong wrote:
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Tho Galileo may have had the first SCIENTIFIC look, it was Johannes Kepler, using the ultra precise observations of Tycho Brahe, who mathematically determined that the sun belonged at the center of the solar system.
No. That was Copernicus. It was he that defined the heliocentric model of the solar system.
litesong wrote:
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Kepler even determined that planetary orbits were not circles but ellipses as they revolved around the sun, according to his 3 Laws of planetary motion.
Kepler proposed a refined orbital mechanics in support of Copernicus's heliocentric model. Much of his work was based on astrology though he did come up with the mathematical basis of later work.

But he did not PROVE the heliocentric model. He applied Occams Razor but the heliocentric and 'epicycles' model both fit the data. Only later was the parallax measured to show the distances were so great that the suns rays could be effectively parallel. At the time, the sun was assumed to be smaller and burning like coal.
litesong wrote:
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Not till Sir Isaac Newton's gravitational laws, were Kepler's blend of Brahe's observation & intuitive mathematics rigorously derived.
Well, yes. Newton built on the work of Gallileo who derived much of his work from the earlier math and philosphy of Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, etc.

Why have you and BlueSpace gotten into a shin kicking about 'my scientist can beat up your scientist'. Do you have emotional issues you want to talk about?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alternative Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Battery Power Gives Boost to Renewables 1 hr UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO ... 140
News Hastings couple making switch to solar power (Jan '16) 2 hr Dalma 4
News Southern California Edison Named No. 1 Solar Ut... 7 hr Solarman 1
News California bill would force utilities to give r... 21 hr Solarman 1
News Trump's tax reform outline promises fight over ... 22 hr Solarman 1
News The Cheap Energy Revolution Is Here, and Coal W... 23 hr Solarman 1
News Hawaii says yes to biofuel refinery (Apr '12) Wed RiccardoFire 12
More from around the web