erichK wrote:
Jorginho wrote:
ShatteredSky wrote:
myh wish for ecology.biology is that it returns to the scientific world and gets rid of all the values it constantly introduces, where students are infected with so they can precisely not be what they should be: unbiased gatherers of data providing sopceity witrh facts and if they can't indicate their findings are not significant hence no proof for some development etc.
Regards
regards.
My wish - and I'm sure it is one that most thinking people share -
I am sure most people would have agreed with the killling of homosexuals at various points in time for them being unnatural, I am also very sure that in many points in time and place virtually all would agree there is a God and its laws as layed down in some book ar morally right and should be applied. That all doesn;t make it true.
is that the endless prevaricators that use appeals to "science" and to "objectivity" to delay effective action
You got this backwards. There is no place for morals in science period. Science can feed opinions, our morality can and scientific findings might even cause a conflict between fact on one hand and our morals on the others.
So yes: science can only provide facts. Not opinions, cannot tell us what we SHOULD do but can tell us what we could do. It is here where ecology regulart fails.
Now about the morality here. I think we both agree largely that our prefered world would be one with much more space for other species than just humans and that global warming is countered by appropriate action. I think we both agree that economics cannot be the determing factor at all here ideally. Well in my mind just not.
The fact of the matter is that a majority of the population moreless agrees with this stance, even in the USA where misinformation about AGW is constantly regurgetated by nonscientists 65% of the people are worried about AGW. The misinformation is there to try to make them think otherwise but the majority knows it is happening and why.
There is however no action taken there and frankly not to any degree to curb GHG emissions because politicians and media have other goals. Media need to sell and therefor come with stories that frighten us but do no make us responsible. So others are threatening us and we are in mortal danger because some ill equiped terrorists can kill a few people here in there (far less than cars do or in the USA: American citizens kill eachother). So our atttention is drawn to these non issues which we btw have caused ourselves. We know why that is: oil. Those are the biggest companies we have: oil companies. We go to war in the ME for oil and we won't take measures against CO2 because of this.
Now the morality is a problem for many politicians and so is freedom of speech. They know that if WE know the truth about all our actions we won't buy it. So they keep thjings topsecret here and try to cover up there so we believe the narrative that others are going for us because of their extreme religion etc. That message is pushed through and becomes toppriority. So even though many of us see AGW as a seriosu threat for our future and that of our fellow beings it is no longer a toppriority.
But our morals are not the problem, nor that science should be objective and not moral or opinionated either.
The inaction is largely based that the most powerful have other objectives than the majority of the people. At least in the West.
- as they long did with smoking, then second hand smoke, then the ozone hole
the ozonhole was scary enough and not so costly so they quickly took action in 1987.
and lake acidification, now global warming, species extinction finally shut their mouths, open their eyes, and recognize the realities that are happening all around us.
Well: where most of the things you mention are proven, the part of species extinctions is not and it is difficult to prove.
To show you how ecology is vastly different here again from climatology: it is perpetuated that so called nonnative species are a main driver of extinctions. But all, yes all, documented extinctions have been researched in a peer reviewed paper in PNAS in 2008. Not single one had so called nonnative alien species as the single driver. Moreover: no extinctions on any continent could be linked to these species. The places where they could be linked is was on islands and islandlike habitats. But even here, the authors noted, many of those species were diwndeling well before the immigrants came about.
This research is undisputed, yet ecology keeps on saying the same thing. Moreover: it also advocates measures against them. Like bait 1081 in Australia against foxes and rabbits, in New Zealand too. Like warfarien against the Grey Squirrel which gets this creature an Ebola kind of death, Poisonining here and poisining there (like some birds in the USA).
Here ecology has crossed a line clearly. First of all it has no proof that these species are a maindriver whatsoever. Second of all they advocate a masslaughter of millions and millions of sentient beings intheir papers (not as private persons) with no solution in sight. Non of these masskillings has eradication as the final outcome.
Now we can ask: is this what scientist shoudl do. And what does this mean. What if scientists start to discriminate between some human species and attribute some different values to the different races....
In 1976, I heard Aileen Smith and doctors and scientists familiar with the Minimata atrocity decry the signs of similar mercury poisoning at the Grassy Narrows reserve. Ontario government "Scientists" and "researchers" kept finding ways of raising doubts about the lethal concentrations and hypothesizing Rube Goldberg "natural" processes. Last year, an ex-employee of the pulp mill upstream testified to being directed to dump and burry dozens of barrels. Even after that Government "scientists" spun new evasions until independent agencies, hired by the reserve, finally confirmed what the levels are.
I am talking about scientists, not "scientists". if someone cannot deliver facts it means they can not prove their point. So there is every reason to doubt.
"Scientists" and the "need for further research" and appeals to natural processes have managed to delay action for four decades and likely contribute to neural damage of more than a generation.
Again....we are not talking about the same people it seems. You are talking about deniers who will keep on telling the same stories in contrast with the facts at hand. There is no scientific doubt humans cause global warming. There is no scientific proof nonnative species are a maindriver of extinctions. Both fall in the same category, that of pseudoscientists.
There will always be some doubts about ultimate causes, about intricate dynamic mechanisms,
No. There is statistics that we use and we have agreed on what is significant. very singificant etcetc. It is always the same. When we claim to know things as a scientist the same rules must apply. Otherwise doublestandards, weak evidence etc starts to run amoc.
about the interaction of complex systems and there will always be some who prefer to ponder and debate them. But there also come a time to act.
Action does not hinge on the strength of scientific proof as you have demonstrated. Action hinges more on a perceived threat, the risks involved. We took drastic action when sexual transmitted HIV caused horrifiic death. Despite some doctors and physicians were still saying HIV did not cause AIDS even in the 2000s already in 1985 people took very little chance and used condoms. At the start infected patient, without any proof, were no longer allowed in schools etcetc.
So we do not need strong evidence to take action. We as a society must assess that ourselves. Facts sound facts we can rely on without any bias from the factfinder can help us.
What would help us a lot more is a chnage in our political systems where we do not vote for one liar on another that then can do as he/she pleases for four years and holds us hostage by abusing our fears and media to spread propaganda about an insignificant enemy we ourselves created. we should not have one choice on a person that than choses to do what we like here but precisely not what we do not like there.
If there was a referendum on climate change a majority woulkd vote for action, on war in the ME and most places the majority would vote against it etc.
Our morals and even our knowledge are fine, we are misguided and we do not live ina representative democracy at all. We have in fact very little to say.
Now....we are not really sure that among all those immigrants aren't any terrorists. Would you agree that the right thing to do is to shut down all border for all those people because even without any facts it is feeasible that terrorists use that route. In Europe some did, it is proven. And do you believe those who found the fact that a few terrorists have entered Europe via Turkey Greece etc also have some special knowledge what to do about?
Or do we need facts on this before we decide what to do with these immigrants fleeing a warzone mostly and should we as a society decide what is appropriate based on those facts rather than our fears?
