The system is broken, the system has to change.

13»

Comments

  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    O wot a non-apology, O wot a beauty.

    I'm sorry, what do you want me to say?

    You said something, I should have ignored it. Is that better?

    Better than being misrepresented.

    You literally stated something that is impossible to check. It is impossible to say if this was something about your car, something about the places you drove, something about swarms of insects at one time but not another.

    It is no different to someone confidently stating that it was definitely warmer when they were young.

    Getting an apology from you must be like getting a stone out of blood.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    O wot a non-apology, O wot a beauty.

    I'm sorry, what do you want me to say?

    You said something, I should have ignored it. Is that better?

    Better than being misrepresented.

    You literally stated something that is impossible to check. It is impossible to say if this was something about your car, something about the places you drove, something about swarms of insects at one time but not another.

    It is no different to someone confidently stating that it was definitely warmer when they were young.

    Getting an apology from you must be like getting a stone out of blood.

    You've still yet to explain what you expect an apology for. I have apologised for thinking your words had any bearing on global insect decline and for taking any notice of them whatsoever.

    What else do you want?

    I'm not apologising for thinking that your anacdote is completely useless.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Citizen science is when unpaid volunteers gather data for scientist to use in peer reviewed science.

    Whether you like it or not, the term cannot be used for observations by untrained amateurs making observations based on nothing and as part of no formal scientific trial.
    It's a shame for your hypothesis that the foundations of our current scientific understanding are observations by untrained amateurs which were not parts of a formal scientific trial. All those country vicars noting the weather everyday, monks playing around with peas, landed gentry with their bug collections ... the professional scientist is a very modern innovation.

  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Citizen science is when unpaid volunteers gather data for scientist to use in peer reviewed science.

    Whether you like it or not, the term cannot be used for observations by untrained amateurs making observations based on nothing and as part of no formal scientific trial.
    It's a shame for your hypothesis that the foundations of our current scientific understanding are observations by untrained amateurs which were not parts of a formal scientific trial. All those country vicars noting the weather everyday, monks playing around with peas, landed gentry with their bug collections ... the professional scientist is a very modern innovation.

    Irrelevant. You introduced a term which has a meaning but you mistakenly claimed it was something else.

    Citizen Science has a meaning. It doesn't just mean amateurs doing science.
  • Forgive my gross ignorance...

    Is it possible it is one of those terms that once had a defined and specific meaning, but now, as English is wont to do, it has gathered additional, even possibly contradictory, meanings in popular usage?
  • Climacus wrote: »
    Forgive my gross ignorance...

    Is it possible it is one of those terms that once had a defined and specific meaning, but now, as English is wont to do, it has gathered additional, even possibly contradictory, meanings in popular usage?
    No forgiveness required I think. The wikipedia definition is " is scientific research conducted, in whole or in part, by amateur (or nonprofessional) scientists.[1] Citizen science is sometimes described as "public participation in scientific research," participatory monitoring, and participatory action research.[2]" We may be in the wonderland type of situation where "when I use a word it means what I mean it to mean". It would be great if we weren't mean to each other.

    The definition seems to take in quite a broad swath of undertakings. Perhaps part of the "The system is broken, the system has to change" applies to how we do many things, including scientific undertakings.
  • I think that's true: that so much of current endeavour is only being followed if it is backed by big business and the plutocracy, as research funding is directing us in limited directions. There is little or no funding for speculative ideas unless they possibly have a military function.

    @mr cheesy - response here
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Inside Science today (on Radio 4) did a segment on the insect study. Their resident entomologist did not once use the word "bullshit" to describe it.
  • Another report today from the UN World's food supply under 'severe threat' from loss of biodiversity - Guardian link - that starts:
    The world’s capacity to produce food is being undermined by humanity’s failure to protect biodiversity, according to the first UN study of the plants, animals and micro-organisms that help to put meals on our plates.
  • The ABC reports on the "probable" first mammal extinction caused by human-induced climate change...

    https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/bramble-cay-melomys-first-climate-change-mammal-extinction/10830080
  • I heard an interview with the author of a book called Origins, about geology and human evolution. During the course of it, the author says that both camels and horses evolved in the Americas, and populations crossed to the Eurasian land mass during the most recent ice age, passing humans who were going the other way. The animals left in the Americas then went extinct. The lack of pack animals then limited the development of civilisations in the Americas because there wasn't the same percolation of ideas between different communities, large scale trade being more difficult.

    While he was at pains to point out that the impact of climate change was likely to be severe on the current species of creatures, he did point to a silver lining, which was that we have so heated the planet that we are likely to miss the next ice age in the cycle.
  • We don't want to miss the next ice age. Which isn't due for 60k years anyway.
  • We are currently in the Quaternary Glaciation (sometimes colloquially called the "ice age", though that colloquialism is also used just for the last period of extensive glaciation), which has lasted for the last 2.5 million years - modern humans evolved to live in a world dominated to greater or lesser degrees by ice. The QG has a cyclic pattern of periods of extensive ice cover (glacial periods) and reduced ice cover (interglacials). For the last million years the periodicity of the glacial-interglacial cycle has been about 100,000 years (at the start of the QG this was shorter, at <50,000 years) with 70-80,000 year cold periods interspersed with 20-30,000 year warmer periods; we're currently almost 15,000 years into a warmer interglacial, if natural processes dominate the climate then we have 10-20,000 years before the next glacial period. The change from glacial to interglacial includes a global warming of ~8C over approx. 5,000 years and more than 100m sea level rise. Human activity has currently added a further 2C on top of that, with at least another 1C unavoidable, over a period of less than 1,000 years.
  • He seemed to think it was a good thing to miss the next ice age. Naturally, I have no idea.
Sign In or Register to comment.