Could There Be a 'Reason' For Climate Change Denial?

The reason one is explored and the other is not is because you can pretend to do work on one, the multiverse, and the other you cannot. The simple hypothesis, though, isn't unscientific because of that.

I still see no explanation for why scientists don't discuss the possibility of a creator of some sort, especially informally. It's always, "The universe appears fine-tuned. So, it's possible that there's this multiverse! Infinite universes where infinite possibilities occur, and we are only here to observe it because we are one of these infinite possibilities!" Yeah, well there's an alternate reason for why the universe might appear fine-tuned, you see.

I personally don't think scientists are being reasonable about this. I think they've got big heads, and they steer clear from any discussion of an order of intelligence that might be higher than their own. I guess it would reduce them to little mice trying to figure out their cages.

 

Haha!! This is awesome!

 

I guess that would all be well and good if things labeled "conspiracy theory" were as far-fetched as the examples cited, but they're not. Virtually any time someone conspires and someone points it out, they're labeled a conspiracy theorist.

 

People actually do conspire, you know.

 

Yes, and I also find it likely people (some powerful, and some not at all) conspire to get more control over a lot of others. But when its proclaimed with certainty some small group controls the american government for example its smart to be skeptical and challenge the assertion. The reactions to that usually lead to the conclusion the label conspiracy theorist applies. The thing is; it goes so often like this people apply the label rather fast (cant blame them most of the time). But just because its a valid assertion 99% of the time doesn't mean a 'conspiracy theorist' couldn't actually be right. Which should become apparent in a proper discussion

 

"Conspiracy theorist" is terrible terminology for such people, though. It's basically "a person who believes in a conspiracy." Call them a wacko or whatever, but there's nothing innately insane about believing in a conspiracy, and it's not as if all people who believe in one conspiracy or another spend their time creating conspiracies all over the place. It's very disingenuous and labels all people who believe in any conspiracy ever as some kind of nut.

 

It depends on the details. Most of the time though when I see it applied it isn't disingeneous but rather fitting. But not always, i agree.

 

Well, yeah, it's fitting. If you theorize a conspiracy, you are a conspiracy theorist. But to use "conspiracy theorist" as a negative label suggests that any time someone theorizes a conspiracy they are not sane. It's like if you started labeling people "human" with some kind of negative connotation. Sure, it's fitting, but you wouldn't want anyone labeled a human to be perceived negatively.

 

Well, some see us as a plague that has caused many other animals to go extinct or threaten to... only because we're so good at being typical human

 

10 people sitting in a theater produce 1Kw of heat, so with an audience of 1,500, the heating load in winter is reduced by 150Kw and the cooling load in summer is increased by the same amount, When numbers stack up, it is far from trivial.
In the theater in summer, it is easy for the air to hover around dewpoint, creating clouds of fog, so he cooling is is even more complex, often producing 5 gallons of condensate water per hour during a performance. This problem is even worse at leisure center swimming pools, where the condensation collects below the roof and corrodes the structural steel;

Regarding the nuclear power, the ADDITIONAL heat is entirely the 70% required to cool the shell of the reactor. All other heat losses are inline with conventional power stations.
My late father was the chief electrical engineer for the UK government and he regularly took me along to work with him. I was at the commissioning of Dungeness A reactor and concerns about heating the surrounding seas were being expressed then. The main discharge lines were 30 inches in diameter to reduce discharge flow temperature and distributed over a 2 mile length to limit the surrounding water temperature rise to 10 degrees Fahrenheit.
I have always wondered whether at the age of 9, I am the youngest person to have been in the control rooms at the commissioning of a nuclear reactor.
Just as well that he was not an airline pilot.

 

Oi, with this argument again

Stop externalizing the problem. You are just as guilty as anyone else on the planet.



"or industries such as the coal industry or the oil industry which would greatly loose money....." blah blah blah

So, your argument is basically its rich cunts fault, rich cunts that make money from all the crap you buy for your home, heat your home if you are feeling a little chilly, rich cunts that make money forcing you to buy a car more powerful than you need, rich cunts that make money forcing you to buy a 6 pack of something. 6 plastic bottles, wrapped up with another layer of plastic. Rich cunts that make money off supplying the 500 single use coffee cups you throw away a year

 

Being in denial about you causing climate change

 

When I said nothing is incompatible with the multiverse, what I meant is that it has no basis in reality, such that you could say how it might effect anything. Nothing is incompatible with it, because no one knows what it is like.

It's hard for me to swallow that there's an infinite number of me who also think that my life is their life. I'm well-rehearsed in my decision making process, and I'm certain that only one of me makes the exact choices that I make. More than one of me would simply be redundant, and I'm positive that I don't just happen to be the one who sits alone in my room all day. There isn't another of me winning the Nobel Prize or flying to the moon. There is just this one who sits alone in his room all day. That's the way it's always been and the way it always will be.

 

This is essentially where the Multiverse diverges from Copenhagen from my understanding... physical systems are presumed to have actual properties prior/regardless of measurement.

 

Things are not always as they seem. Nor are they otherwise.

 

Not sure if this was a rhetorical question, you slightly misunderstood me, It is through observation that we can get a defined "World" and you posted the MWI interpretation of this.