Jump to content
Eise

Climate science was wrong!

Recommended Posts

OMG. Would you please STFU about the stupid TIME article? And thanks also for new repping me on my post above. Keeping it classy, I see 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

But as I said, she worked on an actual fix for part of the issue and Thunberg rallied people and spread a message. I think both are important

As mentioned, the issues are a) that it is not remarkable as such just a regular student doing their regular work (again, it pretty much demonstrates ignorance of the author on how scientific progress works, or just overall laziness in the attempt to discredit someone) and there have been more impactful work around b) the fact that a student is promoted is either an attempt to find someone relatively young (as again, normally the PI is responsible for larger projects) c) it is clear that the whole thing was not done in good faith d) that it is really shitty to discuss other folk's achievement only for the purpose to put someone else's down (rather than elevate other issues).

And again, while there may have been better choices (and also again, this comes up pretty much every year), the example you provided is one of the laziest attempts I have seen to discredit one. There far better articles making the case of other important acts of activism, but the author of the blog apparently was too lazy or ignorant to make one of those cases (or perhaps they don't agree with them politically). But I think there is little to gain from go in circles on this subject further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, CharonY said:

As mentioned, the issues are a) that it is not remarkable as such just a regular student doing their regular work (again, it pretty much demonstrates ignorance of the author on how scientific progress works, or just overall laziness in the attempt to discredit someone) and there have been more impactful work around b) the fact that a student is promoted is either an attempt to find someone relatively young (as again, normally the PI is responsible for larger projects) c) it is clear that the whole thing was not done in good faith d) that it is really shitty to discuss other folk's achievement only for the purpose to put someone else's down (rather than elevate other issues).

And again, while there may have been better choices (and also again, this comes up pretty much every year), the example you provided is one of the laziest attempts I have seen to discredit one. There far better articles making the case of other important acts of activism, but the author of the blog apparently was too lazy or ignorant to make one of those cases (or perhaps they don't agree with them politically). But I think there is little to gain from go in circles on this subject further.

ok,( bolded), my fault for the source

but lets re-start the question without reference to Thunberg and activism

as a Scientist, what do you think of the potential for Vague's research to be put into actual use? 

https://www.reed.edu/reed-magazine/articles/2018/bacteria-eat-plastic.html

1 hour ago, iNow said:

OMG. Would you please STFU about the stupid TIME article? And thanks also for new repping me on my post above. Keeping it classy, I see 

ok, why don't you give me an approved list of what I am allowed to talk about according to you?

as for the rep, I didn't know I was not allowed to use it. Why is it there? How do you know it was me, when I cannot see who is giving me ratings?

and why do you find it so necessary to swear and name call so often? what have I done to personally offend you?

 

thanks

On 12/17/2019 at 10:11 PM, iNow said:

As best I can tell, you’re the only one here making any fuss about it. 

You see I tried to discuss on how corporations should be compelled by governments to actively research and develop tools and methods for dealing with MMCC.

I added to your example of WW2 industry, where car companies (and others) were made to manufacture war material and halt car production, to show that the same should be done now in this crisis that is far worse and has far greater implications for mankind then WW2 did.

But you choose to once again focus on the TIME article ,where, in my previous post I had agreed with you on it.

Why do you choose to snipe instead of discuss?

Edited by YJ02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

ok, why don't you give me an approved list of what I am allowed to talk about according to you?

 

Something related to the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Something related to the OP.

thanks

any suggestions? re wording?  word choice?

this was OP minus the quote I put in from elsewhere

"I believe in the science that states the planet is warming, and warming faster then any natural cycle of warming in the past. I do have issues with those corporations who seem to be looking very hard at finding a way to profit from this.

I mean, this issue is very serious. In the past, when faced with a serious crisis-though not as bad as this- the 'fix' was not monetized. It may be now, but back when vaccines were first introduced to combat issues like polio, MMR, and other serious public health threats, didn't the government(s) just do what was necessary?

They paid/subsidized  the vaccines and instituted a nation wide program of vaccination at no cost, or very low cost, to the recipient.

So why do we not have a similar plan now? "

Edited by YJ02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, YJ02 said:

thanks

any suggestions? re wording? change of word choice?

While your post was superficially related to the OP (you mentioned someone related Climate Science) your discussion quickly moved to politics and decision making at TIME magazine. While it is not uncommon to throw in an off topic comment, the culture around here (and the rules) strives to keep the discussion on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, YJ02 said:

this was OP minus the quote I put in from elsewhere

"I believe in the science that states the planet is warming, and warming faster then any natural cycle of warming in the past. I do have issues with those corporations who seem to be looking very hard at finding a way to profit from this.

I mean, this issue is very serious. In the past, when faced with a serious crisis-though

I do not recognise my OP at all. If this is an interpretation of my OP, you are also very far off. It seems to me you are especially good in misinterpreting texts, and it looks like you do it intentionally. That is close to trolling (not sure on which side of the line...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, YJ02 said:

 this was OP minus the quote I put in from elsewhere

"I believe in the science that states the planet is warming, and warming faster then any natural cycle of warming in the past. I do have issues with those corporations who seem to be looking very hard at finding a way to profit from this.

I mean, this issue is very serious. In the past, when faced with a serious crisis-though not as bad as this- the 'fix' was not monetized. It may be now, but back when vaccines were first introduced to combat issues like polio, MMR, and other serious public health threats, didn't the government(s) just do what was necessary?

They paid/subsidized  the vaccines and instituted a nation wide program of vaccination at no cost, or very low cost, to the recipient.

So why do we not have a similar plan now? "

The OP was basically a link to the NYT article, a quote and a very short summary of one aspect of it, so no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.