Climate change and overpopulation

[AnonUnlimited]

You asked me, "I agree.
Why didn’t you just say this from the beginning instead of personally assigning assumptions to what I meant?"

I gave you the answer. If you don't like it, that is not my problem.

Okay.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Okay.

In fact, this is a wonderful example of human perception. We have the same data, and yet we come to different conclusions of what we say to each other.

 

[Midnight-Phantom]

I just don't get why people complicate words too much, trust me here if you analyze you will see the 'intent' behind the same 'word' differs from person to person while writing .. but when we talk face to face we convey 'intent' with a lot of other things not just via 'words' here as a lot of the confusion is happening as the text doesn't give you the intent behind the said word you yourself define it.. that doesn't happen to known persons as they kinda have a database of your patterns in the subconscious mind that's why I use emojis a lot that simplify things a lot.

 

[BearlyAlive]

Tl;dr

So do we need another global crisis like WW3 or what? Also acadummics suck, they're pretentious pricks that use "complicated" words just to sound academic. They're pretty much the cult-version of the human centipede.

 

[Deleted member 76176]

Your statements are contradictory. You claim truth and fact are different, then in application they are the same.

Science is fact, yet fact can come from consensus of truths.

It doesn't make sense logically.

Evidence is fact.
Interpretation is not truth, it is belief.

isnt that the definition of a theory? there are scientific theories and scientific facts. earth revolving around the sun. earth revolving around itself. these are facts no?

That's because science is faithful to facts rather than objective.

Faithfulness to facts means that scientific claims are objective in so far as they accurately describe facts about the world. Facts are events or states of affairs that happen independently from us. They can be brute facts, which are observable by our senses or instruments, or scientific facts, which are inferred from brute facts by using scientific theories and methods. A scientific claim is faithful to facts if it corresponds to the best available evidence and does not distort or omit relevant information. However, faithfulness to facts is not a sufficient condition for objectivity, because facts are not just ‘out there’ in the world, waiting to be discovered. This is because facts cannot be viewed independently of the experimental, theoretical, social, and historical context in which they are produced and interpreted. They are also influenced by the assumptions, values, and interests of the scientists involved in the research process.

Moreover, facts do not present a clear and coherent picture by themselves. Scientific theories are needed to explain and organize facts into a coherent whole. However, scientific theories are often underdetermined by facts. This means that there can be multiple theories that are compatible with the same set of facts. As a result, scientific objectivity is not only dependent on faithfulness to facts, but also on the scientific methods, assumptions, and theoretical frameworks that are used to interpret and organize them.

 

[Midnight-Phantom]

There are a lot of smart people in this thread.

Little ol me was wondering if you could help me prove that time exists. How do we know that time is real? Is light really the fastest speed possible? What happens if we travel at the speed of light? Will we see our shadows in time? Does gravity really affect time? If so, how? Does space affect time as well? Can the transition from the third dimension to the fourth dimension be influenced by time or gravity?



I am gonna get cookies and coffee .. you guys brainstorm ..

 

[owotrucked]

You guys can shit all you want on laboratories' academic methods of consensus and peer review, they are the ones who actually have the measurement instruments and spend years in a musty office getting the data. They are not playing that consensus and peer reviewing game to convince people, they're doing it to scam fundings out of the government. Fuck, they probably don't want to be peer reviewed, but they don't have a choice because it's a requirement for publishing in scientific journal, and number of publication is proportional to funding xD

Still, It's healthy to doubt everything. Consensus is rejected when a new experimental measurements consistently contradict the established model, but it can always be retconned and overfitted to agree with new data. So that's why it's important to recognize where consensus is unstable and always changing (especially when it comes to extrapolating stuff into the future).

You gotta concede that researchers spend a lot of time getting data and spin it to convincing conclusions that fits best their observations. Meanwhile dude lambda has better shit to do than note the sea level or some shit. So it's understandable that people would tend to listen to academic consensus. Especially considering that our tax money are litteraly funding these guys (unless they have secret deals with companies which happens. You don't know what it's like when you're a researcher to have your funder look at you in disappointment and says "we can't publish that shit, yo.")

In conclusion, have fun weighing people's opinion, might as well use a crystal ball


---

If someone has an assignment about climate change, no matter controversial it is, you can just use past data. There must be past measurement of CO2, sea acidity, temperature for the past fifty years and it can be compared to models of the time.

Extrapolation for the future risks to be biased because there are actual real world conflict of interest with huge consequences.
Just because a model predicted stuff correctly in the past means that it'll work for the future. If that was the case, we'd be filthy rich by predicting the stock market. So, when you make your presentation on future perspective, you can say it's another beast altogether and present different paths.

 

[greyblob]

That's because science is faithful to facts rather than objective.

Faithfulness to facts means that scientific claims are objective in so far as they accurately describe facts about the world. Facts are events or states of affairs that happen independently from us. They can be brute facts, which are observable by our senses or instruments, or scientific facts, which are inferred from brute facts by using scientific theories and methods. A scientific claim is faithful to facts if it corresponds to the best available evidence and does not distort or omit relevant information. However, faithfulness to facts is not a sufficient condition for objectivity, because facts are not just ‘out there’ in the world, waiting to be discovered. This is because facts cannot be viewed independently of the experimental, theoretical, social, and historical context in which they are produced and interpreted. They are also influenced by the assumptions, values, and interests of the scientists involved in the research process.

Moreover, facts do not present a clear and coherent picture by themselves. Scientific theories are needed to explain and organize facts into a coherent whole. However, scientific theories are often underdetermined by facts. This means that there can be multiple theories that are compatible with the same set of facts. As a result, scientific objectivity is not only dependent on faithfulness to facts, but also on the scientific methods, assumptions, and theoretical frameworks that are used to interpret and organize them.

you're over complicating things. you're also confusing facts for observations.

if you replace "fact" with "observation" in your paragraph, it makes alot more sense.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

You don't know what it's like when you're a researcher to have your funder look at you in disappointment and says "we can't publish that shit, yo.")

I do, and it sucks.

 

[Deleted member 76176]

you're over complicating things. you're also confusing facts for observations.

if you replace "fact" with "observation" in your paragraph, it makes alot more sense.

Nope. Observation is limited to human cognition and fact is independent to *this* observation. Although similar, this is a whole can of worms in a philosophical context.

 

[owotrucked]

Btw, for the man-made contribution to CO2 don't you have covid impact on the levels? There was some funky shit happening at that time. Could give an interesting perspective on what happens if people closed their coal furnaces

I do, and it sucks.

Ah, so that's why you're rich

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Ah, so that's why you're rich

Helped out with pharmaceutical research, other than that I can’t talk about it.

But you can guess why I’m extremely skeptical of modern science and scientists whenever there is money involved.

Hence I’m more focused on methodology and testing than extrapolation of the past.

 

[owotrucked]

Helped out with pharmaceutical research, other than that I can’t talk about it.

It's too late Anon. You have leak everything you know before you get murdered.

But you can guess why I’m extremely skeptical of modern science and scientists whenever there is money involved.

I agree. Even meta analysis isn't enough to save this

Hence I’m more focused on methodology and testing than extrapolation of the past.

No, anon, you can't release a new strain of virus to shut down the economy to prove your hypotheses about the factors influencing climate change

 

[AnonUnlimited]

No, anon, you can't release a new strain of virus to shut down the economy to prove your hypotheses about the factors influencing climate change

That would actually be a good method to test the changes. To be honest, it might not be conclusive but it could be evident enough.

Im curious though why there isn’t much data on CO2 emissions when air travel was so restricted.

It was actually interesting during Covid because there were articles that dolphins were swimming in Venice and all sorts of other things, but then some people who lived there said it was bullshit.

I personally don’t know on my end.

 

[owotrucked]

I saw a thing about that. They quantified the CO2 emission drop during lockdown, but it didn't affect total CO2 content.

I think it might be because they can't measure total CO2 accurately in short time span (the uncertainty measurement is bigger than actual change measured) because there are atmospheric motion, different measurement depending on locations, and sea exchange or whatever.

I think we need a longer lockdown to conclude on a significant evolution of CO2 content, so you should work on a more potent virus, anon.

 

[Midnight-Phantom]

Ahm .. how does time affect matter, and how would that affect climate change...

 

[AnonUnlimited]

I saw a thing about that. They quantified the CO2 emission drop during lockdown, but it didn't affect total CO2 content.

I think it might be because they can't measure total CO2 accurately in short time span (the uncertainty measurement is bigger than actual change measured) because there are atmospheric motion, different measurement depending on locations, and sea exchange or whatever.

I think we need a longer lockdown to conclude on a significant evolution of CO2 content, so you should work on a more potent virus, anon.

I sure as hell don’t want another lock down, but if the CO2 content didn’t drop despite emission drops it gives more life to the theory that manmade emissions from burning oil aren’t as big as we thought.

Not conclusive though.

I still have more faith in the 27,000 + underwater volcano theory. CO2 levels are rising and recent data does show decline in O2 levels, so something is happening.

 

[Midnight-Phantom]

Hay @Anon2023

talk about mushrooms .. let every one fear them ..

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

There are a lot of smart people in this thread.

Little ol me was wondering if you could help me prove that time exists. How do we know that time is real? Is light really the fastest speed possible? What happens if we travel at the speed of light? Will we see our shadows in time? Does gravity really affect time? If so, how? Does space affect time as well? Can the transition from the third dimension to the fourth dimension be influenced by time or gravity?



I am gonna get cookies and coffee .. you guys brainstorm ..

Yo, @TheEldritchGod get in here.

 

[Midnight-Phantom]

Yo, @TheEldritchGod get in here.

I was thinking dose dragons really exist? how dose do they feel about time? are they carbon-based lifeforms too?