User Controls
Scientists Warn the UN of Capitalism's Imminent Demise
-
2018-09-04 at 4:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny
If we assume the claims about the environmental impacts of industrial production are true then it seem almost obvious that a capitalistic mode of production is unable to prevent ecological catastrophe. The "invisible hand of the market" is, definitionally, unable to correct for externalities. So either the industrial capitalistic mode of production will be eliminated or human projects generally will, either way the future looks bleak for capitalism.
dont be silly.
they are going to just come up with environment friendy means of production, with a standing army of scientists and researchers and to back them up.
they are going to be harder than tobacco companies to kill. -
2018-09-04 at 8:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock you spelled 'fact' wrong
scientific consensus at the hands of scientists who find whatever results the individuals financing their works want them to find.
this has repeatedly been proven and immediately hushed by the media
So instead of scientific consensus you're basing your opinion on... your vague intuitions about how ecology works?
Like what do you think is happening here? Researchers are taking grant money (which actually can't be revoked regardless of your findings, btw), putting it in their back pocket, and just falsifying all the data? And this is counterbalanced by... studies largely funded by the most ecologically destructive industries in the world? Your personal feelings on the matter?
I'm not saying the contemporary institution of academic research is perfect and totally self correcting but your argument so far has been "huur durr people can be corrupt so my position is automatically right".
Originally posted by NARCassist That becomes a pretty useless argument once you take into account the point that just about every scientist in the western world knows very well that his grant application is like 10 times more likely to be approved if his description mentions that his study is associated to proving the effects of man made global warming and then on the flip is 100 times more likely to be turned down if it says the opposite. A lot of scientists have admitted to this fact.
You realize you don't write research conclusions in grant proposals, right?
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-05 at 6:30 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Like what do you think is happening here? Researchers are taking grant money (which actually can't be revoked regardless of your findings, btw), p
except "scientists" and "researchers" live from grants to grants and their grants for tommorow depend on the results of their "researches" today.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-05 at 6:53 AM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny except "scientists" and "researchers" live from grants to grants and their grants for tommorow depend on the results of their "researches" today.
Actually not true, a professor's salary is paid by the university they're associated with. Being able to bring in grant money does bode well for one's prospects of advancement, I'll give you, but it's not like grant money is going into the pockets of researchers.
Of course this isn't all that important because Occam's razor favors an accurate physical reality which is modeled by experimental results over a grand scientific conspiracy to fake the existence of human caused climate change. Like really, what in the fuck do you think counts as positive evidence against the human-caused climate change hypothesis if you think the funding practices of academic research void that same research? What research do you think happens which is not subject to rejection on the same grounds?
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-05 at 7:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny
Actually not true, a professor's salary is paid by the university they're associated with. Being able to bring in grant money does bode well for one's prospects of advancement, I'll give you, but it's not like grant money is going into the pockets of researchers.
Of course this isn't all that important because Occam's razor favors an accurate physical reality which is modeled by experimental results over a grand scientific conspiracy to fake the existence of human caused climate change. Like really, what in the fuck do you think counts as positive evidence against the human-caused climate change hypothesis if you think the funding practices of academic research void that same research? What research do you think happens which is not subject to rejection on the same grounds?
do you still remember what counts as scientific FACT from your schooling years ?
the criteria for which we deem our understanding of things as 'scientific facts' ?
and a professor without a research is just as good as a rebel without a cause. -
2018-09-05 at 10:26 AM UTCthis thread opened my eyes to how unbelievably stupid some of the people on this site actually are. you're like christian mommies against vaccines and weed who get caught in pyramid schemes but with dicks
-
2018-09-05 at 10:27 AM UTChurrllddr sciencbce not rleala
-
2018-09-05 at 10:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny
Actually not true, a professor's salary is paid by the university they're associated with. Being able to bring in grant money does bode well for one's prospects of advancement, I'll give you, but it's not like grant money is going into the pockets of researchers.
Of course this isn't all that important because Occam's razor favors an accurate physical reality which is modeled by experimental results over a grand scientific conspiracy to fake the existence of human caused climate change. Like really, what in the fuck do you think counts as positive evidence against the human-caused climate change hypothesis if you think the funding practices of academic research void that same research? What research do you think happens which is not subject to rejection on the same grounds?
>being so lonely and miserable a day of excitement/intellectual discussion is you arguing about the existence of climate change with schizophrenics -
2018-09-05 at 12:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by Glokula's Homabla this thread opened my eyes to how unbelievably stupid some of the people on this site actually are. you're like christian mommies against vaccines and weed who get caught in pyramid schemes but with dicks
some even went so far as having faiths in crypto "currencies".
and vested in them. -
2018-09-05 at 3:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny do you still remember what counts as scientific FACT from your schooling years ?
the criteria for which we deem our understanding of things as 'scientific facts' ?
What are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything?and a professor without a research is just as good as a rebel without a cause.
Not really true, probably the majority of universities are more "teaching universities" than "research universities". "Publish or perish" is real in research universities but many places you'll see a very leisurely pace to publication. Plus it's often possible to do research without grant money. Again, the university pays the salaries and maintains labs out of departmental or college funds, if you don't need to acquire some particular resource or labor for your research you can avoid grant writing entirely.
-
2018-09-05 at 3:19 PM UTCBetter get rich soon
The ppl that own the robots (rich dudes) are gonna have them kill you poor fux 👍🏻 -
2018-09-07 at 8:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA256
What are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything?
what i meant was that since this whole 'man-caused-climate-change' thing can never be empirically proven as a scientific fact according to the criteria that science demands, it essentially means that climate researchers and scientists are nothing more than oracles and soothsayers and high priests of science and what they churn out are nothing more than educated speculations based on selective / biased interpretation of available / cooked datasets.
and as they were then as they are now, these science mercenaries will always gravitate towards the powerful and do their bidding. money and fame are what motivates most of them.
not many would want to research or science on taboo subjects such as race-intelligence unless they want to be an out cast.Not really true, probably the majority of universities are more "teaching universities" than "research universities". "Publish or perish" is real in research universities but many places you'll see a very leisurely pace to publication. Plus it's often possible to do research without grant money. Again, the university pays the salaries and maintains labs out of departmental or college funds, if you don't need to acquire some particular resource or labor for your research you can avoid grant writing entirely.
yea i know, i didnt mean that they are going to die of starvation if they dont get grants to fund their researches.
but without highly publicized researches and huge grants these scientists and researchers are nothing but mere educators, as lawyers without power and influences are just lawyers, not politician.
but i wasnt talking about these unambitious individuals.
the type that do researches in order to 'fix' the world are more like politicians. they crave power and fame and the more research funding they get, the more power and fame they have.
i dont believe any of them to be altruistic.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-07 at 9:01 AM UTCBelieving what scientists say is fucking stupid. End of.
Not because there's any particular likelihood that they're lying or wrong, but because you literally don't know. It's secondhand knowledge. Unless you yourself are a scientist capable of peer review and reproducing studies - unless you have performed experiments yourself to justify your beliefs - you are basically a religious person. Your religious beliefs might be correct in the case of believing the truths that science has supposedly provided, but your correctness is built on a foundation of sand. Science is a good tool. Scientists are probably decent people. I am not a scientist however. Most of you aren't. And even if you were a PhD in some scientific field(s), you would not be in a position to adequately justify your belief in the findings of the fields in which you don't specialize.
I have not personally verified half of the things that I have been told are true and am expected to believe are true. I have been told proof exists, but never seen the proof. When I have seen the "proof", I have been shown empirical evidence... but not empirical evidence that this evidence is empirical. That it was real. If I believed what I was told, that would make me a fool. Radical disbelief is the only reasonable action.
Math is pure. Science, aka "natural philosophy", is anything but. -
2018-09-07 at 9:07 AM UTCnot sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I agree. Trusting someone because they have credentials is still trust, and while their credentials, history and the like contribute to the likelihood of them being correct, without being able to analyse the raw data yourself there is no way for you to be certain or to rule out mistakes or trickery.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-09-07 at 9:20 AM UTCHas society lost trust in its upper class?
If you're a poor idiot you turn on the TV and get told that open borders and free trade is good, middle class jobs aren't ever coming back and that's a good thing, and you need to learn to code.
Meanwhile semi-literate jedis get staff positions in the New York Times straight out of college. -
2018-09-07 at 10 PM UTCYou cunts believe in all manner of bullshit with weaker support that scientific consensus on climate change. Fuck it though, I can't be bothered to go through the usual song and dance.
Let's just pretend I go through the process of extracting examples of such beliefs from each of you before pointing this fact out. HTS doubles down on the troll and pretends like he never leaves his room because he can't find certain evidence that his door hasn't changed to lead to a deathtrap since the last time he walked through it, aldra says something about how you should be skeptical of the institution of science but ultimately agrees that scientific publication counts as positive evidence, and "vinny" goes on to post increasingly incoherent ramblings where he backs himself to a more and more absurd position involving various conspiracy theories and probably claiming DJT is the definitive source of truth on climate change at some point and the thread dies when that back and forth peters out.
There, I just saved us all a lot of time. You're welcome faggots.
-
2018-09-07 at 10:04 PM UTCThanks.
-
2018-09-07 at 10:37 PM UTC
Thanks, Lanny. -
2018-09-08 at 5:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny
You cunts believe in all manner of bullshit with weaker support that scientific consensus on climate change. Fuck it though, I can't be bothered to go through the usual song and dance.
Let's just pretend I go through the process of extracting examples of such beliefs from each of you before pointing this fact out. HTS doubles down on the troll and pretends like he never leaves his room because he can't find certain evidence that his door hasn't changed to lead to a deathtrap since the last time he walked through it, aldra says something about how you should be skeptical of the institution of science but ultimately agrees that scientific publication counts as positive evidence, and "vinny" goes on to post increasingly incoherent ramblings where he backs himself to a more and more absurd position involving various conspiracy theories and probably claiming DJT is the definitive source of truth on climate change at some point and the thread dies when that back and forth peters out.
There, I just saved us all a lot of time. You're welcome faggots.
why do you believe human caused climate change ? -
2018-09-08 at 5:24 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny HTS doubles down on the troll and pretends like he never leaves his room because he can't find certain evidence that his door hasn't changed to lead to a deathtrap since the last time he walked through it
I mean, I can't be 100% certain. I am taking similar chances all day, every day. I'm not wrong, but humans are desperate to believe in things they have no right to. I understand, however, why people dismissively mock radical skepticism... they're too weak to accept it's the Big True.
Also:
>he
>his
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
