Global Warming: Your opinion ....

..gorski. It's and will be always hard to discuss with you. It seems I am unable to communicate verbally what kind of scientist I am.
It seems others (like redroad) know me better because they do not put everything in learned patterns and hence are able to 'feel'.
What has god to do with mystifications? And 'ego' will be my mantra as long as you need it to hear.
Don't you see how it fights for survival in 'you'?


(Terms: Black and white pearls). During my study there had been more people opposed to me than 'friends'.
I dared to "question the supreme arrogance of ... colleagues"....
I had been thrown out not only one time as I have posted already.

I am still 'conspicuous' with my way to think at my colleagues. I research because of research. With the goal to relieve suffer.
The ethic and moral belongs to me and does not come from science. And when science is 'the only place' where technology comes from then technology can only come from science.
The purchaser of technology don't has to be a scientist, though. And a weapon is harmless until one fires it.
Who is responsible, the creator or the purchaser of weapons, the 'end-user'?


Let's now come to some practical. Let us put 'the others' aside.
gorski, what are you doing for our nature, personally? I mean have you applied measures to save energy at your home?
Do you take care of nature and how?
When have you updated your devices at home simply to save energy (not obligatory costs)?
What's about waste? Do you separate it? Do you recycle?

 

@gorski

You are the one who sticks the labels (Yen-German-crucifying-scientist) on me……..so you are actually crucifying yourself.

I simply asked for your relationship to the nature. And your post about your life with your granny and the animals told me more than thousands of your other posts. It impressed me much.

Awareness of nature has nothing to do with measures and infrastructures of a capitalistic world where one lives.
When one cannot have the possibility the Swedish have, then the one cannot realize them.
When one cannot buy energy saving light bulbs then one cannot use it.

When awareness of nature and respect and devotion is ever present the right behavior will follow.
The unity with her will unveil the right measures. First awareness, then ‘infrastructure’. A thing old cultures already knew….an eternal truth.

There are people walking from A to B without even to notice that they are walking in the nature.
That much they are possessed by their mind! So how could one develop responsibility of something that is not even aware (does obviously not exist at this moment)?

Btw: Simplified I can say I challenge 'others' by my 'mystifications' of science. Since it questions the entire roots of science only a few have a open ear for it.
But I simply do that by asking them to open their eyes and not to ignore some 'unpleasant' results and facts of experiments, (quantum eraser), determination of time and so on...
Science actually has evidence already of that what others still call 'mystification'. It is simply swept under the table.
It applies to consciousness, reality, time, truth and space and of course 'the nature'.

Einstein was aware of it I am sure, lol.

 

I sure had liked both.


This might resolve some of my 'contradictions'. Holy grail and stuff.
gorski you point out ‘flaws’ in science which I do also. I am not one of ‘those’, who think science is value-free.
I have my ‘rants’ with colleagues from quality control and quality management, better said their confidence of their results they create and the huge apparatus, I often say paper for nothing, the simulated safety due to a lot of papers and regulations, a bloated machinery.
Final goal of quality control is release of goods to sell. And that goal plays always a role when evaluating scientific results.
(I hope nobody of them reads that)

One never should forget:
There is actually no absolute measurement. Means: A scientist can only relate one thing to another. And one thing is declared to be the ‘master standard’.

Simple example: How does one determine length? You use a ruler and relate it to the thing to be measured. Then you read off how many units come along and voila you have its length.
But what’s about the ruler?

The same is with mass and concentrations. The same is with pollutants. No pollution without a pollutant AND something that is polluted!
To this duality (relativity) we need also the observer (scientist) who is also a relative aspect.

The influence of the scientist itself. He’s to read the (relative) values and to write an article. This article is ever influenced by the goal the scientist tries to achieve.
And concerning global warming we have a great variety of ‘systems’ which are related to each other.

(Remember : A meteorologist is not even able to forecast the weather more than 4 days.)


Science has always its blind spot. But what is the reason for it?

I am sorry to end with my mantra again. It is always the ego that gives something (science) a direction / meaning.
For instance a simple table of average temperatures of the last 100 years is no global warming.
There must be one reading it and there must be one who has (relatively) measured it. There cannot be absolute objectivity.
But that is not an issue that applies to science only. ‘Everything is relative’. Einstein.

There is no reason to become upset when having a look at a damaged car….until one realizes it is the own, lol. This sudden change in 'result' (relation) is purely ego related. The same is with scientists. Global warming can suddenly become an issue when the relation changes.
The scientific data are still the same (damaged car), but the ‘result’ (relation to) changes.