Slashdot Mirror
Science By Democracy Doesn't Work
StartsWithABang writes The US Senate just voted on whether climate change is a hoax, knowing full well that debates or votes don't change what is or isn't scientifically true or valid. Nevertheless, debates have always been a thing in science, and they do have their place: in raising what points would be needed to validate, robustly confirm or refute competing explanations, theories or ideas. The greatest scientific debate in all of history — along with its conclusions — illustrates exactly this.
moreso if it's already too hard to make the website readable.
Isn't that called "consensus"? Isn't that what's being pushed by the "Global Climate Change" (new name this week!) crowd as impetus for ending discussion and declaring the science "done"?
Because the majority said so.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Try "Science by Oligarchy".
The point to the vote wasn't to establish the science. It was to provide an argument to politicians that this issue is real. Poltiicians don't understand science so the argument they use is political.
A senator may well want to argue that the science is wrong. It's a lot harder to argue that democracy is also wrong.
Of course we don't like this. Slashdotters like science. Many of us are scientists. This is a terrible way of carrying on, but the important issue is we deal with the environment. If we need to back up our scientific argument with a political one, so be it.
... what a crock of shit.
This process does allow senators to go on record with their specific belief positions about climate change.. the details there are interesting.
Is it a hoax? I'm on tenterhooks.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Global warming has been proven false - now they have decided to change the game up and call it climate change. The bottom line is the climate is always changing and it's absolutely disgusting that there is a group of people that try to use that to scare everyone into doing what they want them to do. These people should be rounded up and prosecuted and all the people that have lost their jobs and insurance due to onerous government regulations and malicious intrusion and monitoring should be allowed to bring lawsuits against them and strip them of every last thing that they own. It's sad that government feels the need to deceive the people like this. It's even sadder that a group of unethical scientists are in collusion with them.
Its just as well that we don't live in a democracy
Just what exactly do you expect will happen if you almost double the amount of the atmospheres main persistent infra red absorber? And if you think it will have no effect can you please explain why you think this.
I'm just curious because I'm sure your stand is based on sound scientific reasoning rather than a rather pathetic attempt at self justification for a "lets carry on business as usual I don't care" approach to the issue which unfortunately is a standard human response to a lot of big problems.
Debate on scientific endeavors does work, because the primary purpose of congress is to fund various programs. Climate change debate in the political realm is all about transferring wealth from other productive areas of the economy. For arguments sake I'll agree there is climate change, and I'll agree to pay a few hundred million of our tax dollars for it, but no more. If you want to spent billions - well then, you've just discovered where the real debate is, and why this is going on in congress. I don't think it's as important as you think it is in dollar terms.
We can also argue about what's causing it, but at the end of the day it's about how many resources get allocated to doing something about it. Some of us think it's a fake issue to reallocate dollars into pet projects. It has happened before. What if we spend the billions and the next 10 years are the coldest on record? Will we get our money back or will we have to fund a new project to deal with global cooling?
Used to be that in a democracy we will weight the facts and then vote on a decision. Now it seems we live in a Yakov Smirnoff joke were we make the decision and then vote on the facts. Except it is not Soviet Russia...
...science relies on evidence and is not swayed by what I, arbitrary authorities or consensus believes. But this goes both ways:
Now I'm not familiar with the US vote. It does seem reasonable, as policy makers and legislators are going to have to respond to climate change in their legislation, that they decide whether they buy the arguments for it or not. And given that the US uses a democratic framework for legislating it doesn't seem unreasonable that the legislature uses a democratic vote to take such an opinion collectively.
You see, that's the great thing about science. It's true, they can't just vote it away. But it's not an authority - you can't demand congress address climate change just because the men in white coats say so - you have to address evidence based, logically sound arguments to them. And your opponents can respond with arguments of their own. And the adjudicator has to choose between them.
If you think that no one has the right to challenge the sanctity of the holy scientific truth then you're just as bad as the politician who thinks they can vote objective reality away.
So this vote may be stupid (or it may not be), but, inherently speaking, a group voting on how to collectively respond to some argument isn't necessarily.
The US Senate just voted on whether climate change is a hoax, knowing full well that debates or votes don't change what is or isn't scientifically true or valid.
You think this vote had anything to do with science? This is about power and policy. It's about pandering to a group of voters. It's about setting a stage for the next election. It's about getting votes. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with power.
Science should inform public policy but nothing forces politicians to actually care what scientists tell them if the facts diverge from political needs. If a politician needs to proclaim that gravity is a hoax to get votes then they will do that and do it with a straight face.
Democracy is a human construct, i.e. consensus of the majority, while science reflects how nature behaves. Good luck imposing man's will on nature.
Does that change anything? No. But I am pretty sure I understand more about the issue than any Senator -- and I'm nobody!
So what does this vote accomplish again?
Indiana tried to legislate the value of PI.
I think we all can see how that turned out.
I can't help but think that if the Senate voted affirmatively that climate change was real, then everyone would applaud them and the article would not have been posted. Like a lot of things, what seems to work and not work is very situational, based on whose ox is getting gored. That said, while it should not be particularly relative what a legislative body thinks of a scientific issue -- after all, scientists aren't voting on whether or not the Senate is deeply, hideously, irrevocably corrupt, stupid, and incompetent -- a political stunt like that sets the tone for a lot of people who are just looking to have their particular bias confirmed -- "Oh, hey, look what the Senate said...normally while I hate government, I'll put that aside for a second and be glad they agree with me! Murka, hell YEAH!" Overall, the fact that this vote took place shows just how badly science, along with everything else in this country, has become politicized. The political debate should be a non-starter, and efforts to reduce carbon emissions should simply be a policy like not dumping barrels of plutonium into the sea or letting rivers catch on fire.
....the defining characteristic to the US political discourse. It is incredible that they would waste taxpayer dollars and time on something just to appease the religious nuts. This is just a way to force and create the illusion of religious persecution (when if anything it is the opposite) when all it is is people discovering the truths of our existence through factual and verifiable evidence, something religion consistently fails to demonstrate. Fundamentally though, religion is meant to be a belief. When the so called facts (like 6 day world creation) of religious ideas whatever belief system they may be are challenged, the religious types get irritable. Christian politicians start these idiotic votes to outlaw the facts, islamic fundamentalists kill people, jews use their media influence to hide the truths that conflict with their ideas. And before the people come out saying this is anti-semetic, check it. That is exactly how it works. Religion has the nice BITE method (google it) to attack anyone that questions it's ideas (I speak of all belief systems as an institution).
The theory of stupid. Where people who dismiss the plain truth in order to perpetuate their own ideas. It's as ridiculous as believing in superman...actually more so as one could actually prove superman exists more than they can using the religious method of proving things (Metropolis, Illinois, statue of superman there, probably even a clark kent in said city as well).
Our Senate (I dare say our whole political system in the US) has gone full retard.
This is clearly the wrong approach, they should simply make it illegal. Make everyone worry for the safety of their children (spontaneous combustion!) and explain that climate change is clearly a form of terrorism thus it is super-über-illegal. That should do it.
"Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
It is? Because all the data I've seen points to other direction.
Also, the local climate has been super fucking weird around here for at least 5 years.
Clearly it's a violation of the separation of powers. Only the judicial branch can decide reality, like the judge ruling that deepwater horizon spilled 3.19 million barrels of oil.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
By 98 to 1, U.S. Senate passes amendment saying climate change is real, not a hoax
Personally, when "the senate just voted" is linked to something in the summary, I would expect the link to tell me more about the outcome.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
This is not rocket surgery.
DO:
Put your shoes on before going outside.
DO NOT:
Greet your neighbors with a tennis racket to the genitals.
DO:
Post the summary of the article in the summary.
DO NOT:
Post worthless clickbait in the summary.
Please grasp the concept.
here's a link: http://www.partel.ie/blog/?p=3... there are other effects from CO2 then climate changed. Decreased cognition was detected at 1000ppm. its a problem in air conditioned buildings with high recycle. At some increasing levels needs to be addressed.
Science by democracy isn't science.
Almost everyone believes the is changing or can change, but the subtext of a significant portion of the "yes" votes is going to be "but we aren't the catalyst for that change". So the point of bringing it up at all, which was to hammer home the need to pursue cleaner energy sources, is lost.
Democracy in general doesn't work. Asking large groups of uninformed strangers to make decisions for you results in bad decisions being made for you.
My issue is that even among scientists this is not a do or die kind of event as Obama and Al Gore try to make it. Some scientists are on the fence some are all in and some disagree with the way the statistics have been presented. Even if you agree that global warming is occurring. Why are these scientists not screaming it and why is it only the Al Gore's and Obama's that are the Chicken Little's? Also, why is Al Gore not preaching this to the worst world offender China? Or why is Obama willing to preach to Congress and American's but does little to do so in China. Also, think back to how many American manufactures have moved operations to China where regulations on pollution's are nil? Just imagine if the incentives to stay and be clean in America would have actually done more then any speech Al Gore or Obama could give. What I see with global warming is a false prophecy based on science that can be manipulated with such small changes that can either make or break your theory. Not that we as human's should not protect our planet. But why are the Al Gore's preaching to the believers and not the non believers? Bottom line, Al Gore profits from pretending to fight the good fight. Even though he rarely engages his perceived enemy.
I take it you are not yet persuaded by the science against smoking cigarettes?
Please mod parent -1 disagree.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
So for the question "is climate change real and not a hoax." everyone pretty much voted yes. ( http://www.wired.com/2015/01/senators-dont-believe-human-caused-climate-change/ )
However, they were split on whether human activity was a significant contributor.
They have simply asked the wrong question!!!!
All they should have asked is: Given that our climate is changing, should we do something about it? (perhaps we need more investigations on what is the cause).
The Republican Congress will do anything (even take a meaningless vote like this one) to show their largest campaign donors that they love and support them. Keep the money coming and we'll let you feel even better about damaging the environment for whatever reasons you tell us to state. .
Democracy is counting skulls instead of brains. - Cant remember :)
Democracy by science also doesn't work. Remember the "scientific basis" behind the eugenics movement, which even after WW2 was used to justify forced sterilization of those deemed mentally retarded? Or the "scientific basis" for blacks being inferior? Or the "scientific basis" for "curing" gays and lesbians? Or the "scientific basis" for trains not being able to travel more than 20 mph because the passengers would have all the air sucked out of their lungs at that terrifying speed? I'm sure that with a bit of thought you can come up with more.
Science and democracy are orthogonal.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
... only scientifically challenged (read: morons) would vote on whether scientific results are true. Why don't they let SCIENTISTS vote on the issue? Oh, right, because 97% of the scientists stating the climate change is true would overrule the 3% that say it isn't ...
It was voted a hoax, the only thing which doesn't work is the title of this article...
...by democracy really doesn't work too well either.
Its the best we have, but it doesn't work, more so in a polarized society.
It may seem odd, but most people in last election voted for Democrats, who have climate change as part of their platform.
In 2012, the first congressional election after the last round of gerrymandering, Democratic House candidates won 50.59 percent of the vote — or 1.37 million more votes than Republican candidates — yet secured only 201 seats in Congress, compared to 234 seats for Republicans. The House of Representatives, the “people’s house,” no longer requires the most votes for power. source
So blaming "democracy" seems a little odd -- especially since we're a Republic.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
We live in a republic. The people elect representatives to determine governmental policy. The people elected individuals who have determined a certain course of action, elections have consequences. If you do not like it, well, too bad
Congress to repeal or alter the laws of physics.
Congress siting safety concerns plans to reduce the speed of light and set up photo enforcement levying hefty fines for violations.
Congress is also considering restricting or even completely repealing the laws of gravity to make it easier to launch space craft making space exploration more cost effective.
A congressional comity it looking in to legislation allowing alchemy with a specific focus on turning lead or even toxic waste in to gold by the government and select campaign Donner's.
Also various congressional comity's are looking in to rain and snow fall restrictions along with complete drought and earth quake bans.
Volcanic activity will be restricted requiring a tightly regulated permitting process for scenic and truest purposes only placing limits on ash plumes and lava flows.
The Yellow Stone shield volcano is to be permanently banned from erupting.
The Earth is flat, the Earth is the center of the universe, republicans are right.
Politicians are idiots. News at 11.
When mathematicians vote on whether to accept a new theorem, when psychiatrists vote on which diseases should be included in the latest version of DSM, when NIH panels vote on whether to fund a grant. No, science couldn't possibly be run by the tyranny of the mob that refuses to believe in ideas that are too new and radical.
(Since I agree that science-by-democracy is stupid)
Does that mean we can ALSO expect Global Warming folks to stop spouting the phrase "an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on..."
Or is it ok for one side, but not the other?
Seriously, though: while I again agree that this vote was stupid, let's all be very clear that the response to Global Warming - whatever the cause - is entirely political.
If you have a problem, it's entirely reasonable to ask specialists about the problem, the causes and consequences. But as we don't have infinite resources to address every problem in existence, choosing WHICH problem to try to solve is not a scientist's choice, it's a political choice.
-Styopa
I'm waiting for them to fix the plague of transcendental numbers and redefine pi to be the proper, all-American value of 3.2. If we're lucky they might fix that pesky e too.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
I'm not sure what "it doesn't work" means. One problem that most American's don't realize is that our representative democracy isn't representing the right interests -- namely, people. And that's by design, actually. Our "democracy" was originally intended to represent the wealthy as landowners, who were thought to hold some sort of moral expertise, which obviously (and admitted to be by Madison) is false, afterall. Around the 1960's we moved a little closer to the right kind of representation, but much of the progress has been moved back, with, for example, things like the Citizen's United decision.
Burried by all the lovely campaign donations *COUGHBRIBESCOUGH* from lobby groups and that wonderful Citizen's United ruling.
So funny. First you say the data shows no global warming. Then you are shown the data, and the data shows a clear continuation of the trend with no pause whatsoever. Suddenly, when it is clear that the data no longer confirms your preconceptions, you turn against the data and say that it is not trustworthy. Then you go on to talk about how preconceptions can result in biases - but you seem to have no self awareness whatsoever! Classic :)
Will you watch as these imbeciles destroy the future?
--exa--
Used to be that in a democracy we will weight the facts and then vote on a decision.
What country have you been living in? The actual "facts" are very frequently irrelevant to the voting process. People vote based on what someone tells them the bible says. People vote based on racial prejudices completely unsupported by fact. People vote directly against their own self interest because they believe lies someone else told them. People vote on soundbites over deciding issues they don't even remotely comprehend. People vote in virtually every election on things where their understanding of the facts is wrong, misinformed, disingenuous, etc.
Weigh the facts? Sometimes but it's hardly the norm. Now had you said people vote on perceptions of the facts I might actually agree.
It gives an excuse to raise taxes on Gas, Coal. And to throw more good money after bad to the "Green" industries that are kicking it back as campaign contributions.
To whatever extent the senate vote was pure idiocy, IMO it still doesn't quite topple the Indiana Pi bill.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
You see, that's the great thing about science. It's true, they can't just vote it away
Just because something is factually true doesn't mean our leaders can't choose to ignore it. Science can point out what a rational policy might look like but it's up to the folks we put in office to decide whether or not to actually match policy to those scientific findings.
Also, why is Al Gore not preaching this to the worst world offender China?
1. Pick your battles.
If a US politician who has influence in the US can not even get the US to change their policies to a meaningful degree, then what hope does he have with China, a country that is huge, developing into an economic powerhouse, currently experiencing slowly increasing standards of living for its population and with a government that is cold if not outright hostile to western interests?
2. Hypocrisy is apparently still a big thing in the US. You are still the largest polluters (not just in carbon) per capita in the world, to sustain your lavish lifestyles. I'm not saying I want you to give all that up, but you surely realize that expecting the Chinese to simply agree with the current status and slow their own development because you ask nicely would be a bit foolish?
Leading by example first requires someone to set an example. People may or may not follow, but at least you now have the moral high ground and did your part, instead of waiting for others to take the first step.
Finally, I'll address Al Gore's profits from preaching. I don't expect these to be especially lucrative, but even if it is, would that be such a bad thing? If you think there's a huge problem with the world, and you want people to know about it by preaching, wouldn't you be happy when doing so at least covers your living expenses and maybe a little extra for comfort, so that you can continue doing it without worrying about this months rent? He's obviously providing a service that some people find useful, otherwise they wouldn't give him any money. How is that so different from the rest of your beloved capitalism? How is it different from any artist with a message? How is it different from most charities or political organisations?
next the will be voting on wether there is a god or not...and a room full of idiots believing in imaginary things doesn't make them real. scary precedent.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
hoax is a deliberate attempt to mislead. calling it a hoax is absurd. it would be more appropriate for a vote on god. i.e. is christ a hoax.
the vote should be, is there sufficient evidence to accept it as highly likely to be true/valid.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Science is not the only thing that does not work by democracy, very few things actually work by democracy.
Building a better car doesn't work by democracy.
Economics doesn't work by democracy.
A wealthy and healthy society doesn't work by democracy.
An individual is smart, a mob is made of idiotic, selfish, panicky, stupid animals and that's somehow is supposed to produce better results? Ha!
You can't handle the truth.
Does that mean we can ALSO expect Global Warming folks to stop spouting the phrase "an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on..."
Or is it ok for one side, but not the other?
The climate scientist consensus argument is stupid if you think it is an argument to prove that global warming is occurring. That is NOT what the consensus argument is about. Instead it is an argument from authority to establish that the people who actually have seriously looked into this and have weighed the available evidence keep coming to the same conclusion.
Here's the thing. Very few individuals who claim that global warming is not real are actually well informed on the available evidence and scientific models. They are arguing based on personal desires or opinions or preconceptions but they are not arguing based on known evidence. Conversely the vast majority of scientists who are researching climate and do actually understand the currently available evidence are almost universally coming to the conclusion that the evidence weighs heavily in favor of the conclusion that average temperatures are increasing and that humans are most probably the proximate cause of that change.
So on one hand we have people arguing from ignorance against climate change while those on the other side of the debate who are fully informed on the topic are almost universally coming to the exact opposite conclusion. Who should you believe? Do you believe the doctor who recommends a medicine that has been shown effective in double blind studies or would you believe the guy trying to sell you a homeopathic remedy which has no supporting evidence whatsoever? When you have a consensus among fully informed scientists on a particular topic, odds are pretty good that they are correct in what they are saying. Scientists have strong incentives to be correct and their work is available (more or less) for all to see and double check. If they are wrong then it is up to those who disagree to prove it. But since those who disagree, almost universally have no actual idea what they are talking about, we have to listen to a bunch of uneducated nonsense from people who lack the good graces to shut up about things they don't understand.
If those who disagree with the consensus want to do so then all they have to do is find objective evidence of a source for the measured temperature increases other than human sources. That temperatures have gone up on average globally is not in dispute. The evidence for a cause of that warming appears to strongly point towards human activity. To disprove this thesis all someone would have to do is show how a volcano or some other natural phenomena is a better explanation for what we observe.
What exactly should we base that policy on, if not for our current best scientific understanding ?
Generally the answer to this is short term economic self interest. Most of the arguments I see against stuff like curbing CO2 emissions are basically arguments for economic self interest. Economic interests often collide with scientific evidence, at least in the short run.
... when they attempted to regulate the value of Pi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
2 C being a bare minimum
Here is a quote from the TAR in 2001 - a projection that has not changed in recent reports: "anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range 0.1 to 0.2C/decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario"
So it looks like we are right in line with expectations. If you are concerned about accuracy (as you imply above) then you should quote a source or double check your statements before you post.
Better explanations for high velocities, high gravitational fields or very small.
Science by consensus is just as nutty and meaningless.
The U.S. has confiscated all the oil in the world to back up the U.S. dollar. If the government were to give every citizen a thousand dollars a day the currency would still be valuable because everyone else in the world needs this currency to buy oil. It's just a game.
Not sure what is meant by 'dire', but warming is in line with expectations. Here is a quote from the IPCC TAR in 2001 - a projection that has not changed in recent reports: "anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range 0.1 to 0.2C/decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario" That is exactly what we have seen.
Regarding fuel supplies, Saudi Arabia plans to pump everything they can while people are still interested in oil. They do not believe they will run out:
"Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil - and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil."
"in a world where a producer sees the end of its market on the horizon, then every barrel sold at a profit is more valuable than a barrel that will never be sold. Current Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi had this to say about production cuts in late December: "it is not in the interest of OPEC to cut their production whatever the price is," adding that even if prices fell to $20 "it is irrelevant." Implied, if not explicitly stated, is that Saudi Arabia wants its oil out of the ground, regardless of how thin its profit margin per barrel becomes." - http://www.nasdaq.com/article/...
The article oversimplifies.
The things it says are only true where scientists were ALWAYS honest, and ALWAYS pursue the data, wherever it leads.
In the real world, we have scientists who have their own agendas, who have published slanted, cherry-picked data, and helped create the situation we now have - where politicos get to decide what is "real".
I would like to believe that most scientists are honest people, but given human tendencies, I may be asking too much.
Think about the AGW debate in terms of the treatment for cancer. If you have cancer you are willing to undergo treatments that can and often do tremendous damage to your body, and might even kill you, because the alternative, certain death, is so much worse. However, would you voluntarily undergo treatments such as chemo and radiation if you weren't 100% certain that you did indeed have cancer? This is the argument at the heart of AGW. The supporters of AGW have no actual proof that man is a significant contributor to "climate change", and indeed because of that lack of proof and lack of cooperation of the data over the past 15 or so years they have even had to rename the malady from "global warming" to "climate change" in order to obfuscate the description of the symptoms so that it's much harder to refute with hard data. In essence what the supporters of AGW are saying is that we must accept radical measures (i.e. carbon taxes, massive transfers of wealth, the turning over of control of energy, and hence control of the economy, over to government, and perhaps to a world government in order to ensure "fairness) which will have the same effects on the world economy as chemo and radiation would on a human body. Yet, they cannot conclusively prove that such radical and disruptive measures are truly necessary. Instead they resort to the tactics of fear and of the late night infomercial pitchmen with cries of "We must act now before it's too late!". You can just hear the pitchman on those infomercials expressing in a tone of great urgency: "Have your credit card ready, you must act now while supplies last!". These tactics are designed to appeal to emotions, not reason.
All by itself people should be highly skeptical of anyone who attempts to convince you to do something that on the surface appears to be against your own best interests (in this case paying higher taxes and giving up more control of your life) with an emotion laced appeal designed to overwhelm your critical thinking skills and goad you into an immediate action without further thought, especially when these kinds of tactics are being justified as being based in science. Would you trust a doctor who told you that you might have cancer, but offers no ironclad proof, and then says you must act now and sign papers granting him authority to immediately treat you with chemo, radiation, and surgery, at great expense and danger to you and profit to him, just in case? This is what the supporters of AGW are asking the world to do.
Yes, scientists debate. Hopefully they do. But hopefully differently than politicians or daytime talk show trash. The difference is that politicians along with the other trash don't listen. They just spew their side and THEY ARE RIGHT AND PERIOD!
Scientists on the other hand present their findings and actually expect a rebuttal. If they are serious about science and not just trying to get some grant money. Science is about questioning. You present your theory, then I present my questions that punch hole into it, then you can patch those holes, alter your theory or fold. Or I may present a theory based on yours that describes better what we observe. And in the end, we will probably, with a bit of luck, find truth. At least for the time being, 'til someone comes and says "ahem, I found something that contradicts your theory...", and then the whole spiel starts anew.
There is no voting process in this. We don't sit there at the end, our competing theories carved into stone, unyielding and immobile, everyone convinced that he, and he alone, is right, no matter what the other side said, no matter what the other side presented, and then we simply cast a vote on who is right. That's not scientific.
That's democratic.
Science is not democratic. Just because 90% say A it needn't be true. For reference see miasma theory, aether theory, geocentrism...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Then we can move onto more important issues like voting on whether jesus, the moon landing, and homosexuality are hoaxes too.
MADNESS
Ok so the idiot US government is wasting time debating something completely aside from the point so that they don't have to deal with the real issue. Whether or not global warming is human caused is a dodge. Because IF global warming is affected by man the root problem is global population. It isn't what people are doing that is affecting the climate it's HOW MANY people that are doing it that IS affecting the climate. Human population growth is exponential. So the time to do something about population control has already come and gone. So attempting to do something about global warming is an object lesson in futility.
You almost had it right. What they should vote on is...
Should the US Government adopt a policy that maintains the world climate at some preferred point?
If so, what point should that be?
If there are impacts does it matter if they are man-made or not? If its better to have it a bit hotter do we care how we get there? If it is better to have it a bit colder does it matter how we got there?
In his closing comment in his report on the Shuttle Challenger Accident Investigation report:
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
thank you for reminding us of how enthusiastically you endorse slavery and religious fascism as 'alternatives' to democracy. you should just reuse this post for all of your comments rather than pumping out blatant lies to try to trick people like you do in so many of your other comments.
how fitting that the captcha is 'threats'
First it was "The Greenhouse Effect" but people love greenhouses because they're full of beautiful plants and flowers so that was out. Then it was "Global Warming." But the globe wasn't warming so that had to go. Then it was "Climate Change." But the climate wasn't actually changing so had to dump that one too. Now it's Climate Justice because who doesn't want justice?
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
...science by decree.
im guessing it will have an effect, all the rothschilds/NWO/Banksters/Military industrial complex's spraying the population with chemicals that heat the atmosphere
Yea it doesn't work. But the majority also got to vote on the flatness of the planet, and that persisted for a while.
Source: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
I say vegetable.
--- Mercutio was right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
It says "hypothesis" but I would argue that it is now "theory" because they've found glacier-deposited boulders at the equator.
If 3 studies say something works really well, 1 study says it doesn't work at all, and 1 study says that cats from Mars are responsible for the positive results, then it's decided that the thing in question works really well? Isn't that just another form of Majority Rules?
The last 17 years show warming: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... . Regardless, there is very rarely a time when you cannot find a value of x such that you can say "There has been no warming since x!" For instance, this year was a record hot year. Unless next year is another record year we will be able to say "There has been no warming since 2014!" So what? For the entire record you can find a value of x that satisfies the statement. Yet we have warmed over the entire period: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
You just have brought proof to how fallible a humans reasoning is, and how he will ignore info when it does not match his preconceptions.
Even though you, as a regular, are quite likely well aware that any vistor who posts gets the nick AC and the oddity of, according to you, someone just having made an U-turn in his reasoning wasn't enough to make you stop and reconsider.
For clarity: The "you" in the above quote and the person who wrote the post you tagged yours on are not the same one.
By the way:
What didn't you understand from my opening line that
? Thats the whole problem, the data and its handling not being trustworthy (I already mentioned for which reasons).
Heck, even several computer simulations of the (supposedly human influenced) climate change based on the available data have shown to be of no help, as there seems to be no way to get a consistent result outof them -- minor changes to the used formulae giving wildly different results, ranging from ice-ages to getting cooked. And thats not really a surprise, as any detail being accumulated often enough will give result in a big end-result.
So, there we are: You with your belief that the presented data is flawless and all thats deduced from it will (thus?) actually happen, while I have have my doubts about the data itself, and the people who created it.
And before you go call anyone critical of the "climate change caused by humans is a fact" a denier, somewhere in the dark ages most of human kind where convinced that witches rode on broomsticks thru the air. Now we snicker a bit because of those peoples gullibility ...
Democracy is 3 wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote! - One of the USA founding guys.
The biggest problem with science today isn't that idiots are voting in congress on various issues. The biggest problem is that science is for sale. You want what results? No problem. For a fee I'll be happy to be your result-that-you-want-man!
On the subject of climate change (funny how the name changed from "global warming" isn't it?) here is Dr Brown of Duke university with his take on how "global warming / climate change" became such a catch all for scientists and all the other problems with the IPCC models
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
Why does it need to be so much like fossil fuel that it can only be answered with fossil fuels for you to accept it?
Tell me, when we run out of fossil fuel petroleum, what energy density will you replace it with? Hope? Prayer?
While no one has ever suggested that science is subject to voting, it is naive to claim that opinion does not guide publication. If I wanted to argue data that showed the speed of light in vacuum was much different from the current estimate, my evidence has to be much better than if I were simply confirming a widely held number. AND, it is perfectly reasonable for a political body to declare that pi is 3.1416 for all calculations used in contracts and surveying. Not so reasonable is to hold that planning commissions cannot use the best science when planning for long terms (which they do, by their nature). See North Carolina's actions, which blocked use of the science.
But, in my opinion the best hedge we have is banks and insurance companies. As long as they are permitted to do the math, we will be safe (unless they are prevented from using their best estimates by social engineering in the "democratic" body politic). For example, in New Orleans I bet rational assessment of long term risk would hurt the poor the most, making for irrational attempts to legislate away risk by blocking its use in assessing mortgages, etc. Think of the whole real estate bubble and the good intentions but bad ideas that made home ownership a right, not to be denied just because the owner could not afford it.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html
Ah, the fallacy of the excluded middle. Everything is yes or no, black or white. No "50 Shades of Grey" for YOU!
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.