Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
If I've committed the sin of marginalizing the entire scientific community, then it was merely in response to the equal sin of elevating them to supreme authoritative status.
The scientific method is the best one we've got for testing hypothesis and informing our understanding of the physical world. Scientists are just people who practice the scientific method to further understanding. They are no more or less moral than any other arbitrary group of people, and they tend to be motivated by the same things everyone else is.
Science has nothing to do with morality or meaning, because observing something as objectively as possible conveys no meaning or morality.
I'm not denying the usefulness and expertise of scientists, only pointing out that understanding climate change and its impact on the well-being of humanity is so complex that anyone that believes they have The Answer is either profoundly ignorant, or corrupt.
I've not denied climate change, nor have I denied that negative consequences have or will occur in the future. My position has been that the appropriate response is somewhere between upend all society and accept the ensuing death and misery and corruption as a necessary evil to save the planet, and do nothing and deny that we have any impact on climate at all. My position is also that climate change doesn't make the top 10 list of activities that most harm humans, or pose an existential threat to humanity.
...and we never had a democracy, we have a representative democracy, and deserve the consequences of anything we allow.
The 14th amendment is fantastic, and merely states what is now obvious, that government should not deprive people of life, liberty, or property without due process. In other words, don't be a tyrant.
Of course, on this we have agreement. My only disagreement is that corporations haven't usurped the legitimate government. We still elect officials to act in our interest, and only those elected officials have legal authority to enact law. The People have allowed government to be corrupted by a number of special interests; and some of those special interests are corporations.
I've suggested some ways that might discourage corruption; but we're (collectively) seemingly unconcerned as long as our expectations for well-being are mostly met.
|
You're using exaggeration and sensational language just like people you've just criticized.
When scientists kept their place, just did their work and submitted their reports,basically,nothing happened to move things off dead center.Here we are 60-years later,and people want to continue to argue,as we slip closer to the brink.'To know and not tell makes cowards of men,' Lincoln said.The scientists grew a pair,and they're not backing down.
As to things,climate science,the climate scientists are all we have.They would have the best command of the data,as they're the ones in the trenches,on the front lines.
Perhaps the appropriate response is to recognize that we have a problem,and a narrow window of opportunity in which to act.Go ahead and feed the poor so they can starve to death as an older person later,when the global food supply collapses.The immorality would be putting more people on the planet only to kill them down the road.
You're entitled to your opinion.
You can landscape the yard while the house burns down.Free will.
Pushing the Earth out of the Goldilocks Zone might qualify as an existential threat.
We had more of a democracy before corporations became 'persons.' Pack the Supreme Court, Senate,Agencies,and committees with clients and voila!,no more republic.
The fossil-fuel industry is depriving We The People of life,liberty,property,and the pursuit of happiness.And I'm party to the crime,through my purchase of their products.
There IS evidence that our government has been usurped.And it's done as an inside job.No different than Rome.The due process clause of the 14th Amendment,subsidies,PACs,dark money,non-elected appointees,from a minority-elected administration,a friendly Supreme Court,are all one needs.