TheRobin Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 Not much to add here, short and to the point article about the ongoing (and increasingly ugly) debate http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/tired-of-the-climate-wars-me-too/
Torero Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 Not much to add here, short and to the point article about the ongoing (and increasingly ugly) debate http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/tired-of-the-climate-wars-me-too/ Well, Don’t worry, the truth seeking in this case is not an analysis of the science. that was over soon... In the "Scientific" American... It actually is about science; defending real, philosophy-based, empirical, predictive capable science against fraudulent pseudo-science which forms the basis for political scams. The root "science" of AGW is flawed. It's not just the politics around it; the whole hypothesis is pseudo-science, sorry. I've listed quite some arguments for this in the various climate topics already. A summary of the most important points for new readers: the premise of Antropogenic "Global" "Warming" (AGW) is: "humans do have the capacity to change global climate, [the question is just by how much]", where it does not review the natural causes of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (like CH4) or lumps them together like they are some "static natural noise" -> I've even come across articles where they call nature "noise". No, humans are "noise", nature is the basic dynamic melody. the predictability of all the climate models so far is zero. The models all predicted ongoing warming, while that didn't happen. So the models (Stefan: "models are not science", Torero: "scientific models are scientific representations of reality and by definition never 100% exact") are all flawed. any claim on "97% consensus" on natural-scientific terrains is bogus. The natural sciences (geophysics, geology, hydrology, meteorology, climatology) are not consensus-based. There are many different views on observations as they are so difficult to pinpoint; too many factors that are dynamic (change over time). Examples? Put 100 geologists into the field and as a result you'll have 101 different geological maps. Or ask 100 weather(wo)men to predict the weather in 1 month time and all the predictions differ from each other. Imagine a game of chess; after a mere 4 turns the amount of possible outcomes is more than 288 billion! And that's with a board with just 32 pieces, 2 players and 64 squares. Imagine that when the number of factors and possible outcomes becomes amazingly higher and the factors are inter-dependent (or not), dynamic over time and even unidentified (science is never finished) parameters come into play... 1
Thomasio Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 I would add another point: Even IFFFF we would assume that humans could have an influence on the climate, aren't humans part of natural evolution and wouldn't therefore the effect of humanity be part of natural changes? Since the only proposed solution from the alarm side comes close to shutting down civilization and moving humanity back into the caves, I would be strongly against doing anything like that, even IFFFF it could make a difference. The only constant in this world is change and adjusting to change is one of the biggest natural talents of biological life.
fezjones Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 Its disturbing that the people who will tell you that they are convinced of climate change do almost nothing to stop climate change. If an asteroid was heading toward earth and there was an agency that told you that they had a very good missile that would eliminate the asteroid, there would be hundreds of millions of people giving whatever dollar amount necessary to fund the operation, to the point that the voluntary human action would be excessive at some point. similar to how natural disasters become charitable disasters. People who say they believe in climate change, must believe that it is similar to an asteroid like situation. its something that will affect their grandchildren and their great grandchildren, as bernie sanders has said. So why are they not doing anything about it beside voting for certain politicians, which is the highest form of slactivism, its worse than commenting on youtube videos, because voting for government programs leads to worse outcomes, as opposed to awareness which can change people's behavior. Why when you look at rush hour traffic is there no teams of bike riders in the shoulders and bike paths along the highway? Why are democrats not abstaining from procreation with the stated intent of stopping global warming? Why are democrats not taking on a monk lifestyle? Why aren't they preppers? Why are they paying taxes knowing how much government agencies pollute? Why is climate change not the #1 issue (according to polls) among democrats? Why are they donating to all kinds of organizations that seek to preserve human life, such as cancer research? Why are they not boycotting the airline industry? Why do they still mow their lawn? they should all move into apartments Why are they not creating massive funds for alternative energy? If you look at the billions that are donated to politicians and other organizations, and then imagine all that money could have gone toward reducing emissions. Its like a person telling you how they are convinced the world will end on September 22, but they still show up to work and never change their lifestyle. obviously they are not actually convinced the world will end. 1
Recommended Posts