Hey, hey, easy now - it was me insisting on dialectics here (relational stuff), whilst scientists and their lackeys kept insisting on "facts" and their "unquestionable", i.e. "absolute" nature, therefore trying to gag the rest of us, "the great unwashed", whereas I insisted that theirs is a complete garbage position blah-blah... I.e. my position was consistent and coherent (whatever the issues, like the three-pronged man's relationship or pollution, cumulative effect we might be having etc. etc.), whereas the "scientists" amongst us were and still are in quite a bit of a pickle when it comes to actually talking to the "great unwashed" - there is a bit of a disdain towards democracy among them, on the whole, sadly - and they'd prefer if the rest of us "scientifically unqualified" were to be silenced... Just so there's no misunderstanding... But we'll continue trying to teach then right from wrong... And I don't care if it has to do with Thalidomide (awful position on that one!!!), endocrine disruptors, changing climate, energy questions or weapons of mass destruction...
No offense, gorski, the body of the post wasn't directed at you, only the first sentence Sorry I did not make that clear. But yeah, I agree about the 'facts' issue. Main thing to me about 'thinking models' is seeing that they are indeed models or representations of what is actual. A belief system or model only represents reality (in our minds). Whether our consciousness has the ability to directly perceive reality rather than only create symbolic mental models of it, is indeed another question. EDIT: oh yeah, not to forget: scientists do often talk with a type of absolutism when it comes to their models, and seem to forget they are just models. Maybe it is because they believe that all man can do is make models, and direct perception or transcendental reality is not possible. Then it is of course natural that they believe they got the best model (due to their intense studies) and so 'truth is on their side'. I wonder what people have come up with when they put such effort and discipline into exploration of consciousness itself. Oh wait, some people have been doing that for thousands of years!
None taken, as I didn't take it that way, since I knew it wasn't "directed at me"... But I thought it better be mentioned who here is consistent and coherent throughout...
One never should forget that 'the society' has great expectations on science. There is also the demand of 'absolute truth' and infallibility. Science is asked for those absolute models and infallibility. People don't believe that there are absolute models. But they demand them. Everything has to be absolutely 'safe'. Science is actually asked for a generic matter, a question that can be only answered by the one who is actually asking. This generic question is responsible for the demand of an absolute answer. Who am I? When it comes to personal harm, or personal interests then science is asked to deliver absolute results. You better not fail! (Medical) malpractice, how could that happen! On the one hand science has to be absolute 'right' and must not fail, on the other hand people complain about their answer the 'absolute models'! The demand is too high and the idea of an absolute science is also wrong. Science is not the holy grail, so one should not complain when this truth one already knew reveals. I know that there are scientists who are that much convinced of themselves that they think they have studied the absolute truth. Those scientists had been always a thorn in my side. Global warming is a very complex matter. I came to my personal conclusions which I have posted at #388. We are in a natural warming cycle and we accelerate warming due to our behavior. This has consequences such as more 'energetic' weather conditions. Also our natural water accumulator ice seems to vanish more and more with all the consequences. That seems very reasonable to me. The Physics speak volumes. Thank good I am not asked to be absolutely right. I cannot.
I don't think 'people' are complaining about certain scientists' intricate explanation of a scientific process, but rather when they use it to discount human engagement in philosophical and transcendental matters as nonsense That is, of course, the absolutism I was talking about. I think you know that... Yes, you know it!
The global warming might cause problems for humanity, whether caused by humans or not is a different question. Life is very resilient. It has endured far worse than this global warming. Modern society is a rather fragile compared to life as a whole. What global warming will do to us is a very important question.
Humanity itself is very fragile also, not just society. But I think there will be a place for single-celled organism for millions of years to come But the conditions we need to survive, yes, it does deserve great care on our part to not screw it up.
Stating to be absolute right or to have absolute results is a major issue of mind (humankind), it’s not only an issue of science. I had high expectations on science when I discovered that I have some talent in Chemistry. Later (after study) due to my travels I got my 'spiritual' input from different cultures and people. I know where science has its place and where it is limited. I often get to know that scientists are that much mind related that they cannot simply 'overcome' and let lose what they have studied, not even for an experiment or some minutes, lol. To be absolute right is actually a wanted goal of the ego, nothing more nothing less. It wants to survive by playing the king. But the ego’s idea of absolute (the fact that it is an idea already shows evidence of a relativity) is: I am the (only) one who is right. Or: I belong to those who are right. Or: Anything else is nonsense. The absolute cannot be understood by the mind and hence it is an issue concerning study. The mind can only relate. The absolute is not related to anything, not even to time. It never can be objectified. It simply IS ever and now. It never changes and is coherent and eternal. It is as it is. Any idea one could ever have is never ‘the absolute’. Concerning absolute: Who should have what? Experiments where information is transmitted in no time, or experiments where an attribute of a wave changes (becomes a particle) when observing consciousness is present indicate that anything ‘comes from the absolute’. This is swept under the table and a PITA to most scientists because it never can be understood (by the mind). Means science cannot be applied on the absolute means their study is actually useless, a fact the ego doesn’t like at all. Anything that is applied on ‘the absolute’ is relative. There are ‘open minded’ scientists, though. To discuss with them about such matters is a great pleasure.
We now have a new rule in Belgium on certain days we can only drive 90 instead of 120 to stop fine dust in the air.
Which kind? The one in place is crap - you need to drive for quite a while 'till it reaches a temperature at which it starts doing some good - and even then... Diesel is a killer...
That's right. They are designed to work well at operating temperature since it persists most time of use. Modern filters are actively controlled relative to the exhaust gas temperature. The same is with any catalytic converter, they need operating temperature to have most effectiveness. Diesel don't has to be a killer. If the engine is well adjusted (air / fuel relation) and it uses a new generation particle filter then it is as 'bad' as a Otto petrol engine. Killers are engines which have old technologies and are not well adjusted. Surprisingly they are found at public vehicles because they are 'sponsored' and don't have to fulfill new laws..... I go by bus to protect the environment can become a doubtful statement....just watch the exhaust cloud of a public bus or another commercial Diesel vehicle...
Back to the point about science with some spine and brains: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qjvwQrZmpk Just so you don't think that only scientists are frequently up their own arse... Or can cause major havoc with their "wisdom"...
As Yen said Diesel can be less of a killer when set up correctly I run 2 to 4 lb more boost from my turbo on 3.1 diesel this forces more air into the combustion chamber making the fuel burn hotter as it has more oxygen making the exhaust gas cleaner. if i was to up fuel supply it would produce more power and also more pollution
Source : http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/cold-snow-climate-change.html Source : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/08/nemo-climate-change-storm_n_2646720.html?1360343800 Good read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/08/climate-change-blizzard-global-warming_n_2649587.html
AGW causes more precipitation then? And drought too. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/21/causes-of-midwest-drought-2012_n_1690717.html I cannot say I'm convinced by either claim.
Hi BobSheep good to see you .. I know your trying to keep an open mind the drought article is from Aug. 2012 .. I am just glad we are seeing a heightened interest in both Scientific driven data and the citizenry's active participation in the debate .. Certainly the fundamental economic costs should wake if not concern most..