Science based decision making fella. Whats your risk appetite??
There will be no living the way we are going
“Science based”
Think about it silly.
Not near as high as most other consumers out there.*
But no one gives a fart about what I think.
So I do my best to deal with what is.
I’m impressed, so you do know how to add up two and two to arrive at a solution.
But thing is, it’ll be drawn out, with extreme weather events, doing its damage here and there. Gonna be nothing like what Hollywood dishes out. Like acid drops being dripped onto a wonderful painting, burning holes here and there, until the holes get bigger and start merging, and so on and so forth, and then it will be over, we knew it would come at some point, what a shame we did nothing to push that point into the distant future, instead collectively we’ve done everything possible to fan the flame into an inferno.
I have some advice for you to ignore:
Get your own head straight, before pestering others, Mr. I Don’t Share My Thoughts.
Rizzo’s program isn’t capable of thought.
Science depends on conclusions (or else unexamined assumptions) in epistemology.
Metaphysics depends on the findings of science.
Aesthetics depends on conclusions (or unexamined assumptions) in metaphysics, science, and epistemology.
Ethics depends on conclusions (or unexamined assumptions) in aesthetics, metaphysics, and all the rest.
Politics depends on conclusions (or unexamined assumptions) in ethics as well as all the rest.
And epistemology depends on conclusions in politics, since only political philosophy can defend free speech, free thought, free inquiry, or arrive at how these should be limited (e.g. outlawing unethical scientific research).
So you can’t actually make arguments or reach conclusions in one of these domains without having settled all the others.
Science is just philosophy with better data. Which means philosophy is just science with less data.
The above is from
https://www.richardcarrier.info/philosophy.html
Right. And it’s hard to tell if it’s a previous bot reborn or a new bot. Either way, it doesn’t pass the Turing test.
Philosophy is an outgrowth of religion, who’s shadow it still hasn’t escaped.
Oh and popular philosophy doesn’t need any data at all, just a nifty argument.
Well… Science was spawned from philosophy. It’s sort of (but not exactly) like:
I don’t know anything but this ancient text → religion.
Well, I’ve thought a lot and I know more than what’s in that ancient text → philosophy.
I know a whole lot about something → science.
1 Like
Smuggling in philosophy and metaphysics into a climate change thread. Go for it . Lead the way with these. Lets see where it takes us because i could not find any links in the skeptical science website
What were you looking for?
Yo, go read the title of this thread, why would you think philosophy is off limits?
One can’t even begin to understand what’s happen to climate science, and it’s public perception, without taking into account the malicious games played by people who’s philosophy is based on Taxes are Bad and to heck with the down to Earth facts - the free loader mantra.
What metaphysics please point it out?
Yo - i dont use philosophy or metaphysics to tell me the toxic concentration of a hazardous substance.
Yo over and out
I was responding to this
“Science based” means political decisions that are informed by data and evidence. Science is neutral. You don’t ask scientists to design an experiment that determines how many people should be allowed to drive a car. Science can tell us the consequences of actions, but it doesn’t choose for us.
Some people say we shouldn’t have babies at all. That its immoral. They say it’s scientific.
1 Like
And what does the climate data and evidence say??
Science based decision making - addressing the hole on the ozone layer
Science based decision making - addressing the Thalidomide scandal
Science based decision making - addressing acid rain
Science based decision making - addressing cancer
Buy yourself a gas mask, make a physical statement, rather than whining and blaming everyone for being stupid.
What are you doing to combat AGW? I am still waiting for your solution to the problem.
When did this turn into a chemistry dissertation regarding concentrations and effects, we were talking end results and posted trajectories and how humans deal with the information scientists are sharing with them, and perhaps a little of how many billionaires have evolved into sociopaths these day.
But you don’t want a simple clear discussion, do you?
You’re more into spanking every one with your moral outrage.
I’m assuming you know the answer to that. I also know how governments and power work. So, I do my best to lower my footprint, spread the word when I can.
If you were serious, here you go.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying everything in those links is absolutely accurate, but I do want to dispel your hysteria, facts are being collected, some people are working very hard on these things -
It’s our collective societal priorities that are killing us.
Before trying to attack scientists and other experts who are working these problems, how about addressing the failure of the general public and our political, business, religious, leaders?
Also that’s the easy part, constructive strategies, and the will to carry them out, that’s a whole other ball game.
1 Like
I dont believe you do know
I don’t believe you don’t believe that I do know
Strawman personification is your game
[quote=“frankrizzo, post:92, topic:11108, full:true”]
And what does the climate data and evidence say??Science based decision making - addressing the Thalidomide scandal
Thalidomide has nothing to do with climate change.
Science based decision making - addressing acid rain
You might not hear about acid rain as much as you used to. In the U.S., the 1990 > Clean Air Act Amendments helped lower the levels of pollutants that cause rain to become more acidic. But acid rain still falls across the globe.
Yes, we’re still poisoning the atmosphere.
Science based decision making - addressing the hole on the ozone layer
- A significant reduction in the consumption of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) has been achieved globally since 1986. This reduction has largely been driven by the 1987 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Montreal Protocol.
- The largest historical extent of the ozone hole — 28.4 million square kilometres — occurred in September 2000. This area is equivalent to almost seven times the territory of the EU.
- The 2023 ozone hole has been larger compared to 2022.
What is the current state of the ozone layer? | European Environment Agency's home page
Science based decision making - addressing cancer
The ozone holes at the poles, are causal to skin cancer.
No other cancer has anything to do with climate change.
And what exactly is being done about those two pollutants that have resulted in any measurable relief?
Apparently we are still releasing these pollutants.
ENVIRONMENT
4,228,036 Forest loss [this year](javascript:void(0)) (hectares)
5,692,079 Land lost to soil erosion [this year] (ha)
31,958,275,245 CO2 emissions [this year] (tons)
9,756,019 Desertification [this year] (hectares)
7,961,219 Toxic chemicals released
> in the environment [this year] (tons)
Sources and info:
- Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Program - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- United Nations Environment Program
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
So where are these solutions you speak of to be found?