Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

I am wondering how many kids who "learned" or were indoctrinated at a public school would actually be able to tell you what other factors than greenhouse gases contribute to climate change. Never mind the factors, I doubt they would be able to name any greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Most of them would probably not know that there is any other carbon dioxide that causes global warming than the one humans produce. In other words, shit education is worse than none. - Total waste of time money and human resources. Human resources that could mine coal so that the really intelligent folks can keep their arses warm while developing a truly efficient way of making electricity without polluting environment too much. I bet that if you did not waste public money for sending morons to schools, we'd long have had fusion power all over the planet already, produced at private fusion plants no bigger than an average detached house, rather than being forced to wait for projects like JT60SA or ITER be completed (which are gonna be shit and probably long after technology will have become obsolete anyway).

[QUOTE=Ts RedVeX;1809790]

I am wondering how many kids who "learned" or were indoctrinated at a public school would actually be able to tell you what other factors than greenhouse gases contribute to climate change. Never mind the factors, I doubt they would be able to name any greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Most of them would probably not know that there is any other carbon dioxide that causes global warming than the one humans produce. In other words, shit education is worse than none. - Total waste of time money and human resources.
--Your pathetic ignorance of the curriculum in English schools is matched by your cynical ploy of denying they even receive an education, being either 'learned' in puzzling apostrophes or 'indoctrinated' as you call it. This renders your reaction to my earlier point about the role played by education in developing a diverse understanding of climate change redundant. But I don't think you take it seriously anyway.

I bet that if you did not waste public money for sending morons to schools
-If you want to be taken seriously, and I wonder if you even take yourself seriously with this kind of remark, ask yourself where my GP was educated and why do I trust him so much? He was educated in schools not far from where I live, and has given me medicine that has quite literally changed my life for the better. And guess what, he is not a moron.

You ridicule voters as idiots, and democracy as a threat to human freedom. I have met and debated with libertarians before, but you are carving out for yourself a most particular niche, but that is your choice, even if it makes you look strange and isolated behind your wall of impotent rage.

For the record, the world we live in, even with its plenitude of violence, hate and suffering, is actually a kinder, and more gentler place than you find it.

Quote:

---

I am wondering how many kids who "learned" or were indoctrinated at a public school would actually be able to tell you what other factors than greenhouse gases contribute to climate change.

---

Most universities offer courses at all levels in geology, paleontology, meteorology, thermodynamics, atmospheric physics and chemistry, climatology and other Earth sciences wherein one learns how the Earth’s precession, it’s encounters with asteroids, continental drift, vulcanism, core temperature, solar activity, photosynthesis, cloud cover and the chemical composition of the atmosphere have effected in past eons and will continue to effect into the future the stability of the Earth’s daily energy balance over time; i.e. climate change. In the U.S. public schools there are Earth Science classes that touch upon most of these topics.

I don’t know if you ever taken many science classes. It sounds as if you haven’t; or if you had your experience is not typical. A good science course will (and there are quite a few good ones in public funded schools and universities the U.S., Britain and Europe - as we train quite a number of engineers and researchers from around the world) hone the student’s critical thinking, creativity, hypothesis testing, lab technique and mathematical skills.

Unlike the predictions of ideology, those of science are used to prune, redirect or eliminate competing hypothesis when they do not stack up against the repeated results of tests and observation. Science does not deny the results of repeated observation (as do climate deniers, flat-Earthers, creationists and others of that ilk). Rather science seeks unveil reality.

RedVex seems to oscillate between two positions. ONE: Regulation is standing in the way of intelligent entrepreneurs who could solve the problem of climate change by giving us clean and efficient sources of energy or ways of using it. TWO: Climate change is a hoax by communists who want to regulate industry.

I don’t know about ONE. I will admit that the function of some regulation isn’t to advance the progress of engineering design so much as it is to protect people from abuse and exploitation. However, TWO is a clear example of denying the evidence to save an ideological perspective.

Firstly, I am not denying that climate is changing. I am convinced, however, that the global warming caused by CO2 produced by humans is being blown out of proportion by communists, bandits, mafias, who want to exploit general public's lack of knowledge and ability to interpret information they are bombarded with by mainstream mass media. I also believe that such approach of those communists causes regression in our civilisation's development.

Secondly, by "most universities offer (...)" are you trying to say that there are universities, universities, that do not offer "Earth sciences" courses that teach about causes of global warming other than CO2 produced by humans? "Most" is a rather vague term isn't it?

I am not oscillating between the two positions. I take both of them.

I know that you are in favour of equality, Stavros, but come on.. Kids can learn or be indoctrinated, and they can be taught or indoctrinated rather then "be learned". For a communist who knows all the fancy words, like yourself, you ought to know that, especially when ranting about my "weird" 66es and 99s, about which I guess you will just have to be a bit more tolerant and equal rights lol... I failed my exam anyway so I don't really care. Most people know what I mean. I also reckon double quotation marks are a good way not to confuse the Brits who already find it difficult to use an apostrophe in correctly.

If voters vote for higher taxes then they must be idiots or have no idea of how taxes propagate down onto consumers. Either way, democracy is an absurd system that divides societies and nations before our very eyes. It will be the main cause of our civilisation's demise, I'm afraid.

Quote:

---

I am not denying that climate is changing. I am convinced, however, that the global warming caused by CO2 produced by humans is being blown out of proportion by communists, bandits, mafias, who want to exploit general public's lack of knowledge and ability to interpret information they are bombarded with by mainstream mass media.

---

Then you deny the science and the only reason you can give is that the scientific findings somehow fly in the face your faith in an outdated ideology.

[QUOTE=Ts RedVeX;1809916]

Firstly, I am not denying that climate is changing. I am convinced, however, that the global warming caused by CO2 produced by humans is being blown out of proportion by communists, bandits, mafias, who want to exploit general public's lack of knowledge and ability to interpret information they are bombarded with by mainstream mass media. I also believe that such approach of those communists causes regression in our civilisation's development.
--The typical excuse of someone who cannot, or will not engage with the science: 'climate is not static, therefore it is always in flux' -That is not, and never has been an element in the science of climate change. To dismiss the science as the work of communists, bandits, mafias, robs the argument of any shred of intelligence.

Secondly, by "most universities offer (...)" are you trying to say that there are universities, universities, that do not offer "Earth sciences" courses that teach about causes of global warming other than CO2 produced by humans? "Most" is a rather vague term isn't it?
--I cannot answer for the USA although famously, the University of Chicago dismantled its Geography department in the 1980s. In the UK there are universities that do not have departments teaching geography, environmental sciences or related studies. I am not sure if this is an important point anyway as there are plenty of institutions with high reputations that do teach and research the subject.

I know that you are in favour of equality, Stavros, but come on.. Kids can learn or be indoctrinated, and they can be taught or indoctrinated rather then "be learned". For a communist who knows all the fancy words, like yourself
--If I wanted to, I could be insulted at the way you choose what it is that I believe, regardless of what I think and say, indeed basing your presumptions on your own, rather than my ideas.
I am not insulted, just not surprised that having demolished your ridicule of the science curriculum in English schools your response is to avoid that specific issue -as if it were not important!- and attempt to make me the problem.

To say I know that you are in favour of equality, is a bold statement, given that I have not made my own position clear on something that has been controversial from the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle to the idea of Justice as Fairness in Rawls, the inherent contradictions in the concepts of liberty and equality in Hayek and Nozick, or the brilliant if difficult argument in Dworkin's Taking Rights Seriously. You can survey the arguments here, if you are interested-
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/

In a tangential manner, the issue of what equality is or might be, is related to climate change because in the disquisition of the subject, we note the tensions between equality as an ideal condition, and inequality as a condition of life, even though we appear to be either unable to explain inequalities in the conditions of life, or reluctant to do so because it may expose the extent to which inequality is un-natural and created by some men to benefit more from life than others.

Thus, even if you believe that an equality of opportunity should shape the way in which politics offers people from all levels of society that opportunity to improve their lives -something as a libertarian individualist you must surely agree on- it must also be the case that societies exist which prevent that equality of opportunity -that freedom to live- from being realised because the people concerned live in so deprived a region of, say, the USA, that there is little or no formal education that, through the transmission of reading and writing skills equips citizens with the basic tools required to be equal at any level, other than the biological.

To be born Black in some parts of the USA is thus to be born into a social milieu which by definition deems Black people utterly incapable of doing anything that 'comes naturally' to white folks, hence there is no need to educate them. The result being a structural inequality that condemns one part of society to a life of poverty, in practice repudiating the ideology of personal freedom that you claim is superior to all other forms of social organization. Consider yourself blessed that your were not born Black in either rural Alabama or Louisiana.

By denying 'equality' any value, without even debating the complexity of its political sociology or geography, you expose yourself as a hypocrite that trumpets individual freedom even as you appear to support a political system that denies it, that grabs it by the throat and strangles it, or, historically, has lynched it to a tree.

The trees encountered on a country stroll
reveal a lot about that country's soul

I forgot to add the important point that poor -and thus in relation to rich, unequal- societies are at a disadvantage when it comes to those actions that they might be able to take to combat the worst effects of human-induced global warming, because they often find themselves at the wrong end of a process that began thousands of miles away in societies much richer than their own. We are all citizens of planet Earth, and must surely have collective responsibility for it based on the way we live.

Picasso said that "Art is the lie that tells the Truth"
OK, I'll buy that.
But Science is Science.
Trying to make Bullshit into an artform is just bullshit.
Unless you're in the manure business.

Nope, I believe in science. I also believe in ideologies that have proven to work in practice and I dismiss ideologies that have or have or have been failing.


It would indeed be nice if the pseudo scientists pushing global warming finally acknowledged that climate has never been static.


My bad. What I had meant to write was:
Secondly, by "most universities offer (...)" are you trying to say that there are universities, universities, that offer "Earth sciences" courses that do not teach about causes of global warming other than the CO2 produced by humans? "Most" is a rather vague term isn't it?


First you say that kids should have freedom - just like their parents - now you say that you are not for equality. Then you suggest you wanna give the same kind of education (although in a vague way by means of "a rounded and balanced education" for American children) to morons as is given to kids with average IQ and the bright, and then again you say you are not for equality. That is just an incoherent load of crap. You are clearly for the equality as it is understood by socialists.


As to you philosophical thought about tensions between equalities - yes equality is a very specific state, e.g. in maths, where 2 is only equal to 2 and is not equal to any other number. It can be described as some ideal state that rarely occurs in reality. Since maths is a language used for describing how the world works, it is more natural for things to be unequal than equal and any attempts to make things that are unequal equal usually ends up in a costly disaster.: Put a moron and a genius in a group of 30 pupils at school. The natural reaction of the group is that it starts pick on the moron and the genius. The teacher steps in trying to protect the moron as well as the genius, but that only works during school. Both of the exceptional kids will get picked on during breaks or after school as there will be nobody to protect them. If you have a group of students with equal IQ there will be no picking on one - another as they will be finishing their tasks in similar periods and therefore not get bored and get silly ideas. Same goes to coeducation, letting pupils not to wear school uniforms etc... Th applies to all domains, e.g. economy; not only in education.


Equal opportunity is another example of a socialist idea to create problems, just like the equality one: Because a moron is not equal to a genius, they automatically and naturally do not have equal opportunity to obtain a PhD. On the other hand, If the moron is big and strong, and the genius is small and weak, they also do not have equal opportunity to become a world-class weight lifter. Forcing a stron moron to think as hard as the genius is just as idiotic as forcing the weak genius lift as heavy weights as the strong. This is also why your socialist collectivism just does not work. People must be treated as individuals.


If I was born black in an unwelcoming region then I would probably try to move out of it at all cost rather than agitate my neighbours with equality bullshit, unless maybe I wanted to become a martyr.


Speaking of collective responsibility, do you mean the kind of responsibility the Roman soldiers would face all those centuries ago? - Decimation after a lost battle? Now, that sounds civilised... Maybe it would do well in case of the communists coming back from Brussels after a failed Brexit negotiation :dead:

Hey bronco:d I found something interesting about Berkeley that may help your imagination, since you mentioned that you "cannot imagine anyone complaining about quality of education it offers". This guy does not seem to be very happy about what is going on there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQF-cKFDivk