Are only Environmentalists scientists?

Post Reply New Topic

What about chemists, physicists, etc? Do they not count as scientists as well, or do only the ones who make statements with political ramifications count as scientists? Going on and on forever about how the world's going to end apparently makes a person more of a "scientific" mind than someone who does something more useful with their time, researching cancer, developing new propulsion methods for spacecraft, or performing basic research on the composition of matter. Do only the followers of Thomas Malthus count as scientists or do the less apocalyptic ones count as well?

Not sure what your point is, 'Keet. That more physicists doubt anthropogenic global warming than do actual climate scientists does not make said physicists 'non-scientists,' but it does make them preachers of a subject in which they are not expert. The same thing would be true if said climate scientists started ranting about how the physicists were wrong about string theory because the climate scientists simply couldn't understant/couldn't believe in it.

Science coverage in general doesn't break into mainstream news often. CNN fired it's entire science news division several years ago, including MIles O'Brien. No profit in reporting it. Cable news is almost entirely op-ed now and the network news doesn't have much time available. You have to follow dedicated science outlets to get that sort of news today.

And the AGW advocates are not happy at all with mainstream news coverage of the issue.

Yeah, he worked there for decades.

There are several components to the question that are important to consider before rendering any solid progress in the ideation of an opinion.

On the one hand, you have a group of people that are stating in some way or another, that humans are doing a lot of unnatural things and those unnatural things are likely to have a negative impact on our environment.

On the other you have a group of people that are stating that nothing we are doing will cause harm to the environment.

In between is an interplay between the above two far ends of the spectrum of environmental conceptualizaiton. Most people reside somewhere between the two spectrums. Unfortunately, most people are also to detached from real reality to ever do anything positive about it (seemingly myself included).

On the one hand, are people who are very cautious and concerted. Those who realize that this recent change in human behavior is too widespread and prolific to merely ignore. That realize if we do not pay close enough attention and come to understand the things we are doing, there may be no second chances. These people recognize that the universe is not concerned with the will of man, and that if man does not play by the rules of the universe that he may snuff himself out, whether unwittingly or otherwise.

On the other, you have typical zealots. Capitalists, religious, etc., or those who are just down right ignorant, who put their faith in unseen articles to which they relinquish the ultimate authority on the direction of collective human existence (whether it be some godly figure, the unseen hand, etc). To these folks, we are all but pawns in some elaborate scheme derived beyond the power of human conception. To these people, it is safest to disregard skepticism and admonish complex information and careful consideration. The embodiment of the modern existentialist. "Men of God", "Don't tread on me".

For me, the biggest question is: Is it reasonable to think we humans can do so much, care so little and expect to get away with it? Or would it be more reasonable to be responsible for our actions and use our brains, our science, to do the things that we know are not detrimental to our environment? Shall we let Capitalism decide our fate, or should be rejoin mother nature and treat her more respectfully?

I say it is too late. Humanity is a disgrace.

This is one of the most insane, brain dead topics I've ever read. Why the f*ck do we even respond to crap like this? After all, the OP will either deliberately strawman what we say or unconciously misread what we state - there's no winning with some so intellectually rigid. After all, how the f*ck can you be so ignorant of the other side as to actually think that they say scientists in different fields aren't actual scientists?

Regardless, I have heard no climate scientist and very few environmentalists actually say that the "world will end" if the climate warms. What's generally stated is that some costal cities will flood with 50-100 years if warming continues at the current rate and adjusting to climate change if we ignore it now will result in tremendous long-run economic discomfort.

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

What about chemists, physicists, etc? Do they not count as scientists as well, or do only the ones who make statements with political ramifications count as scientists? Going on and on forever about how the world's going to end apparently makes a person more of a "scientific" mind than someone who does something more useful with their time, researching cancer, developing new propulsion methods for spacecraft, or performing basic research on the composition of matter. Do only the followers of Thomas Malthus count as scientists or do the less apocalyptic ones count as well?

You do not know what you are talking about. AL GORE IS NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST. LIBERAL BLOGGERS AND EVNVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS ARE NOT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DO NOT WRITE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY THAT CONSERVATIVES DON'T LIKE. THEIR JOB IS MERELY TO INFORM.