Screams shook the editorial corridor. In science, as in a newspaper, there is enough space for any number of geniuses - the main thing is that there be geniuses, not talkers. Therefore, not everything is so scary. As Dostoevsky once said, beauty will save the world. I feel like Russia has a much bigger problem than simple denialism: their leaders must be tempted by the idea that climate change will damage the rest of the world and benefit Russia. I don't mean to imply something cultural by this, simply that their geography lends itself to this cynical optimism.
Russians will also be harder to convince of the negative effects of waste and pollution, because their country is massive and was already severely polluted by the USSR. Still, despite this, Russia has remained in the Paris agreement while the US has pulled out. The US has something much closer to a death drive. Grazie Ugo. But at least you have effetto cassandra, in your native language and which helps me with my attempts to learn Italian. More challenging than 'la penna di mia zia e sulla tavola nella sala da pranzo', which is the usual fare.
Reducing CO2 emissions is unacceptable from ideological point of view. That would mean that the countries like China and Russia slow down their development in order to help West to preserve it's dominance. That would be like helping your own enemies. Therefore for less developed countries reduction of CO2 emissions is absolutely unacceptable.
West already consumed disproportional quantity of the world's resources. The situation described in this post reminds me of similar scientific nationalism in art history. In general scientific nationalism is still very much alive, but mostly in humanities. In 19th century French art historian Louis Courajod invented the notion of "International Gothic style" to obscure the importance of Italian early Renaissance artists whose avant-guardism was undeniable.
A scientist searches for truth and nationalism interferes with that. Perhaps there are fewer scientists than we think. Not everyone who calls themselves a scientist has the disposition to truly be one. Yet soon the true scientist will be revealed. The moral imperative of having to stand up for the truth of anthropomorphic climate change will show who is true and who is blue.
A black swan weather event could make that truth undeniable. As I have stated here many times, science studies show that there is no "unpolitical" science.
Every scientist is influenced by his upbringing, his peers, the institution he works for, etc. In a way, science is the fundament on which politics bases itself. But nevertheless the scientific method seems to be a very handy tool for figuring out the truth in the end. So I kind of resent the notion that there are "true" scientists and "false" scientists. As an afterthought, I would say that there is corrupt science.
Science that has been bought by special interests or "science" that is just there to con people. I would suggest to throw those responsible in prisons. Sadly, in climate science, its also politics that keeps the law from taking action. Derrick Jensen has a great phrase to describe some things which are not the way they seem.
A scientist who is more of a social butterfly than a real scientist could be called. A toxic mimic. Your resentment means you are one of the good guys. Maybe there is no russion climate science because the russian state is indistinguishable from Gazprom and the fossile fuel industry is all that keeps this disfunctional kleptocracy running? Just a thought.
- Your Answer.
- Servant of the King: Part 1 of the Templar trilogy.
- About the Cassandra replication factor!
- What you'll learn-and how you can apply it.
- Explosions In The First Person: More Of Sassoon’s Short Stories.
- Abigail (The Stevenson Saga Book 4)?
- Understanding and Preventing Corruption (Crime Prevention and Security Management).
Climate science in Russia is the strongest and most developed in the world. It was Russian scientists who once laid its foundations.
Cassandra (metaphor) - Wikipedia
It is the Russian climate models that are the most accurate and close to the results of satellite observations, which are recognized throughout the world. That is why there are no blatant alarmists among our climate scientists, and those who support the AHW in words are forced to do so for financial reasons.
But we in Russia do not boast about it, because, as Ugo correctly says, the concept of "national science" is a relic of the past. So everything I've said above is the contribution of Russian scientists to the global climate science, which, unfortunately, often replaces scientific findings with politicized slogans these days.
Sorry, but whoever considers himself climate scientist and is not alarmed is either corrupt or an utter idiot. But why do you think so? It seems to me that this is a taste approach, far from intellectual. Sorry, I wont disuss science with. Arriviong at your point of view is only possible by ignoring science and intellectuality itself. I do think that you are quite similar to "historians" that are holocaust deniers.
I do not think that talking to clearly deranged and imoral people is a good way to spend your time. Yes I do think that your standpoint is as bad as that of a neo nazi propagandist, as you are also trying to play down a global genocide by denying reality.
For anybody else but Alexander, these are my reasons. I am a phycisist and a programmer.
- Cassandra Input.
- Cassandra Configuration and Tuning - RHQ - Project Documentation Editor.
- tripsuppchycentro.gq: Cassandra - Paperback / Humor & Satire / Literature & Fiction: Books;
- Cassandras Dilemma by Ciara J. on Prezi.
- Autism: Difference or Disorder?.
I know the science, I know the scientists, I know the data, I understand what is at stake, I know how and why people like Mike Morano want to play down the issue and attack climate science and intellectuality. This is not a West-East discussion, as it is made up to be here, but a discussion about class and generational issues in todays capitalism. Trump and Putin are oligarchs and represent oligarchy. They hate climate science because it threatens their ability to make money.
They employ Mike Morano or Alexander to attack science and intellectuality in the public so that they can go on exploiting the earth and destroying the climate for making money. Alien, as I said I understand you. But, please, let's not turn this discussion into another shouting match, as it happens all the time. It is just that human minds are different and work in different ways. How do you argue intellectually with someone who clearly has lost his ability for rationality and reasoning.
This is a question I do indeed ask myself a lot these days, as we drift towards far right extremism, anti-intellectuality and neo fascism everywhere. The tragic answer is you dont. It is pointless, as is your honest undertaking of trying to do so. As Bob Altemeyer says: "Compared to most people, studies have shown that authoritarian followers get their beliefs and opinions from the authorities in their lives, and hardly at all by making up their own minds.
They memorize rather than reason. You can keep on believing as much as before if you want. You can even pat yourself on the back for believing when it seems clear you are wrong. Some people do this, and you know who taught them to. When the evidence and arguments against their beliefs becomes irrefutable, they simply shut down. If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, as Samuel Johnson said, dogmatism is the last resort of overwhelmed followers. Alien Observer, not everyone is, or can be, scientifically literate to the degree necessary to interrogate the scientific literature and come to a truly independent decision on whether e.
So as a result, many, many people must adopt an opinion on topics which they have no technical expertise. The question really is, why is it that people do not trust i. I think that the answer is threefold: 1 most academics have become somewhat corrupt, at least at second hand due to the pressure to publish rapidly, coupled with funding agendas which are set politically e. The bottom line is that I agree with Ugo - we need to accept that just because we are certain that we are right and incidentally I am NOT a climate denier does not mean that that certitude is obvious to everyone.
And this is the core of the question: in the end, all knowledge is the result of testimony, the Christians speak of the old and the new testament, which is the same concept. But testimony is worthless if you don't trust the witness reporting it. And there we are: bereft of anyone to trust. Correctly, you identified some of the problems with the current generation of scientists, greatly inferior to the task they tried to perform.
Related Cassandras Affect
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved