A Radical Prescription

Chesterton said:

Something we hear frequently in this forum is that "science is descriptive, not prescriptive". So what do you guys think of this?

Scientists endorse mass civil disobedience to force climate action

Click to expand...

Scientists are not science.

Scientists recognise that the scientific method (i.e. science) has identified a serious problem of global magnitude.
Many of these scientists, as concerned citizens, recognising the inadequate reaction of governments to the problem, have endorsed mass civil disobedience.

There is, thus, no conflict between your quoted phrase, or the action of the scientists. Did you think there was?

I think these same scientists are aware that if they can't sell man made climate change to individuals and governments their meal ticket is gonna stop......

civilwarbuff said:

I think these same scientists are aware that if they can't sell man made climate change to individuals and governments their meal ticket is gonna stop......

Click to expand...

Ill informed twaddle.

civilwarbuff said:

I think these same scientists are aware that if they can't sell man made climate change to individuals and governments their meal ticket is gonna stop......

Click to expand...

Either that or they sincerely believe that man-made climate change is a threat. But I suppose you have dismissed that possibility out of hand.

Chesterton said:

They didn't really make this announcement as plain old citizens. Article says they intentionally showed up in white lab coats, lol.

Click to expand...

Which is a means of emphasising that they are familiar with the significance of the findings, but your scepticism is duly noted (and disregarded).

Ophiolite said:

Ill informed twaddle.

Click to expand...

If you are one of these scientists, I apologize since nothing personal was intended........

Speedwell said:

Either that or they sincerely believe that man-made climate change is a threat. But I suppose you have dismissed that possibility out of hand.

Click to expand...

Nope, not at all....but I have dismissed that it means the end of mankind and all that 'ill informed twaddle' mentioned above.

Ophiolite said:

Which is a means of emphasising that they are familiar with the significance of the findings, but your scepticism is duly noted (and disregarded).

Click to expand...

Isn't open dialogue the goal of a peaceful society and not dismissal of opposing thoughts?

Speedwell said:

Either that or they sincerely believe that man-made climate change is a threat. But I suppose you have dismissed that possibility out of hand.

Click to expand...

Revelations explains how toxic chemicals and climate change are going to be a big problem when the time comes. There is basically nothing we could do about it, but at least we can try.

redleghunter said:

Isn't open dialogue the goal of a peaceful society and not dismissal of opposing thoughts?

Click to expand...

Aggressive ignorance on the part of climate deniers has removed peace from the equation. Their choice.

Chesterton said:

Something we hear frequently in this forum is that "science is descriptive, not prescriptive". So what do you guys think of this?

Scientists endorse mass civil disobedience to force climate action

Click to expand...

Sorry to break it to you but scientists are also humans. That means that when they see something truly scary in the data they tend to want to try to make sure the truly scary stuff doesn't happen.

The science is not what is doing mass civil disobedience...that's the people because the people will have to live through the really bad stuff.

Ophiolite said:

Aggressive ignorance on the part of climate deniers has removed peace from the equation. Their choice.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Climate denialists have been able to stall the necessary actions for nearly 30+ years (60 years if you go back to some of the early alarms) and now the fixes will have to be much more draconian. So the only thing left when a large group of people who worship ignorance hold the reins is to force them to understand the gravity of the situation.

civilwarbuff said:

I think these same scientists are aware that if they can't sell man made climate change to individuals and governments their meal ticket is gonna stop......

Click to expand...

I am a scientist and I find this offensive. People don't go into the sciences so they can "sell someone on a fake idea". That's what Marketing is for. No, people go into science (and make less money than business people) because they truly want to understand the systems.

Are there bad apples? Sure! But not the vast majority of them. And you'd have to believe the vast majority of the earth's climate and earth scientists were all bad people over the last 60 years to think it is some conspiracy to "sell something".

(Unless you are trying to tell us YOU are the kind of person that would abuse YOUR position to take advantage of someone at their expense and so you assume OTHERS are like that as well. I hope that is not the case).

The_Barmecide said:

Indeed. Climate denialists have been able to stall the necessary actions for nearly 30+ years (60 years if you go back to some of the early alarms) and now the fixes will have to be much more draconian. So the only thing left when a large group of people who worship ignorance hold the reins is to force them to understand the gravity of the situation.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm, guess they could be sent to somewhere really isolated for, you know, 're-education'.....maybe some place like Siberia? Maybe that would "force them to understand the gravity of the situation."

And people wonder why I won't give up my firearms.....sheesh

The_Barmecide said:

I am a scientist and I find this offensive. People don't go into the sciences so they can "sell someone on a fake idea". That's what Marketing is for. No, people go into science (and make less money than business people) because they truly want to understand the systems.

Are there bad apples? Sure! But not the vast majority of them. And you'd have to believe the vast majority of the earth's climate and earth scientists were all bad people over the last 60 years to think it is some conspiracy to "sell something".

(Unless you are trying to tell us YOU are the kind of person that would abuse YOUR position to take advantage of someone at their expense and so you assume OTHERS are like that as well. I hope that is not the case).

Click to expand...

Then as a scientist I have to express my extreme disappointment in what you appear to consider appropriate action. That is to take people and "force them to understand the gravity of the situation."? So, how does one do that? Publicly shame them? Dismiss scientific articles that don't agree with your position? Maybe organize and pressure schools to only teach your perspective forbidding any opposing view (generally referred to as brainwashing)? Send them to re-education camps? This is just plain scary. Just because you may have more expertise in a field does that give you the right to force people to 'understand' that only your position is right and acceptable? Does not sound very scientific or impartial to me which I always thought scientists were....thanks for correcting me.

civilwarbuff said:

Then as a scientist I have to express my extreme disappointment in what you appear to consider appropriate action. That is to take people and "force them to understand the gravity of the situation."?

Click to expand...

Well, let's say someone who knows a lot about something (far, far, far more than you, for instance) comes and says that something in their field of study says something bad is going to happen unless we ALL take action. If you say "No, I love my ignorance so much that I will stand in your way and we will ALL suffer", is the expert in their right to say "This is unacceptable"?

So, how does one do that? Publicly shame them? Dismiss scientific articles that don't agree with your position?

Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. So I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you don't have any real experience in earth or atmospheric science or even say, chemistry. (Just a guess). So if I present to you 1000 peer reviewed articles that say "anthropogenic global warming is real" and then I present to you 30 peer reviewed articles that say "maybe the data is not quite right in those 1000 articles". Do YOU feel you are in a position to side with the 30 articles?

If so, why?

Do you OFTEN bet against the house when you go to Vegas? If so you are not making much money. You are losing more often.

That's why expertise is what it is. Of course those of us who DO know a thing or two about this particular field know that the 1000 articles are a safer bet to go with. And indeed we all know that the vast majority of earth and atmospheric scientists believe in anthropogenic global climate change.

Just because you may have more expertise in a field does that give you the right to force people to 'understand' that only your position is right and acceptable?

Click to expand...

It kinda does when it affects ALL of us. Let's again assume for the sake of argument that you are ignorant of most of the actual science behind AGW (anthropogenic global warming) and your "say" will keep us from addressing the problem. I personally will suffer (well, my children or grandchildren will suffer) and as such I wish to address the problem. What do we do then?

Does not sound very scientific or impartial to me which I always thought scientists were....thanks for correcting me.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand much about scientists or science for that matter. But I'm guessing here as I don't really know you. But I've seen your type of "reasoning" a lot before and it usually isn't coming from a position of knoweldge of the subject at hand.