‹ First  < 17 18 19 20 > 
 
   
 

Could - for example - “Climate Change denial” be considered treasonous?

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  7453
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
12 January 2018 11:14
 
Celal - 11 January 2018 08:32 PM

Fortunately, I’ve been inoculated against bullshit!

Just like all the Christians who have been inoculated against Darwin’s Origin of the Species.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-americans-deny-evolution-climate-and-vaccine-science_us_5888cd7ce4b098c0bba7db84

 
 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  2703
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
12 January 2018 13:57
 
mapadofu - 12 January 2018 07:36 AM

I did not see any contradictions between the article Gore linked to https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/perfect-storm-extreme-winter-weather-bitter-cold-and-climate-change and the analysis of the cold snap https://wwa.climatecentral.org/analyses/north-american-cold-winter-2017-2018/ by Oldenborgh et al.  Note that the former does not make a claim that we should expect colder cold spells.

Of the remaining players, you seem to have the most aptitude for a reasoned discussion.  I will allow unsmoked preoccupy himself with Christians and Vaccination argument.

My background is Engineering. None in Climate Sciences. I approach it strictly from a point of an Engineering discipline. There are too many holes in the Global Warming claims to be a real science.  Here are some of these reasons.

1.  Science is not about building consensus. It is about fact.  The Global Warming advocates have used the 97% consensus as their mantra. This is a sign of something seriously wrong.  Just imagine for a moment taking surveys to prove Newton’s theory of gravitation and Einstein’s general relativity. 

2. What is 97%?  Why is it implied falsely that 97% of all scientists agree with the Global Warming Claims caused by humans?  This alone should tell you, it is a fraud. Because 97%  based on a research done by John Cook, et al in Australia that
  ***  97% of the papers he surveyed endorsed the view that earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.
But analysis of his research does not support this conclusion. In fact, only less than 2% of the papers say that Humans are the main cause. Not 97%.  He arrived at the 97% by simply assuming that those papers which did not say humans are the main cause, simply “implied” it.  That is not science.
***  Why is it that people who support Global Warming claims don’t even know or want to understand the background of 97% claim? 

3. Regarding the number of Climate Change papers and what they predict ... US Government puts out about $2.5B for climate research every year.  Democrats only give that out to those scientists who will produce results that support Dem Platform about Global Warming. So it doesn’t make it right. It only makes it bought and paid for. We have many examples of Scientists who don’t support these claims, defunded, harassed, investigated and intimated.  We discussed some of these in prior pages.

That is why there are thousands of scientists who disagree with these claims. Democrats and the main stream media, the anchormen on the airways who haven’t a clue about science have already bought into the claims to perpetuate the bullshit!  Ask yourself, how can any of these people support such claims when they do not understand Climate Sciences at all!  I can however disbelieve it without background in the Climate Science simply because of the faulty methodology. 

4. Climate Change, Global Warming, Climate Crisis all project doom and gloom. The history is full of “Prophets” claiming to have talked to God and the World will come to an end unless we take action [meaning we do what he says].

5. Climate Change is a Democratic Party platform and everyone in the Party goes along with it and I’m certain none have a background in any of the fields you had asked me about to comprehend Climate Change.

So be loyal to your own common sense.

[ Edited: 12 January 2018 16:28 by Celal]
 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  742
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
12 January 2018 16:32
 
Celal - 12 January 2018 01:57 PM

So be loyal to your own common sense.

‘Common Sense’ was a bunch of liberal propaganda.

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  218
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
14 January 2018 09:29
 
Celal - 12 January 2018 01:57 PM

My background is Engineering. None in Climate Sciences. I approach it strictly from a point of an Engineering discipline. There are too many holes in the Global Warming claims to be a real science.  Here are some of these reasons.

1.  Science is not about building consensus. It is about fact.  The Global Warming advocates have used the 97% consensus as their mantra. This is a sign of something seriously wrong.  Just imagine for a moment taking surveys to prove Newton’s theory of gravitation and Einstein’s general relativity. 

I too dislike the argument from consensus, especially when phrased in the form “97% of scientists agree that climate change is real” or similar statements about what scientists believe.  Using the 97% figure in this context implies too much precision on what is an idea that is difficult to quantify (“what set of beliefs actually constitute acknowledging antropogenic climate change?” “who exactly are in the population of scientists?” “what exactly constitutes ‘anthropogenic climate change’?” etc.  Profundia made similar points in an earlier post).  I also agree that this line can be easily caricatured as though we were dealing with a popularity contest.  However, I believe that it is a fair, if not 100% precisely quantifiable, characterization that there is broad consensus among climate scientists that human emissions of CO2 are having a measurable effect on the climate.  I also believe that the fact that this consensus exists, though not dispositive, is a salient fact to consider when looking at this topic.

You brought up General Relativity.  I’m pretty well convinced that it is accurate to say something like “there is broad consensus within the physics community on General Relativity”.  What does that mean?  Well, you could look at what physics students are taught: if you get into the basic “modern” physics level courses you get some exposure to the ideas of GR and (hopefully) some of the observations that back it up; these are presented more or less as facts.  Another aspect might be to interview or survey physicists (there is a population delineation problem here) to see how they view that theory.  Or to survey the literature to see if there are other competing theories that are taken as serious alternatives within that community.  Within these surveys you will find some crackpot ideas (e.g. the “electric universe”). For GR, or probably more accurately SR, you’d have to go back to the early 1900’s, to a time when aether theory hadn’t been given up on yet to find a time where there were competing ideas in this area.  These are all facts, and, in principle, observable facts about the world;  specifically these are sociological facts.  Now the question is, how did this kind of state of affairs within the physics community come to pass?  The short of it is, GR was formulated, tested against experiments, and further refined and fruitfully extended to other things (black holes, cosmology as such etc.)  all the while, building up a bigger body of results that are consistent with the theory.  That’s why nowadays, when a lab purports to have observed particles traveling faster than light (happened at CERN a few years ago) the reaction of the physics community is to find out what was wrong with the experiment (error in the GPS calibration) and not the adoption of some different competing theory that was already out there in the literature.  What I’m arguing is that when we observe consensus within a scientific community it is a consequence of there being a solid match between theory and experiment that has persisted over generations.

Could a scientific consensus form around some incorrect idea? In principle, sure, but in principle any aspect of science is up for grabs (what if those faster than light particles hadn’t been a measurement error?).  However, if you don’t have any other information, betting on “the consensus idea” is more likely to be correct that picking out one of the screwball alternative theories.  That being said, sophisticated discussions should be able to get past this high level summary description and into the details, which is where I prefer to dwell when discussing the science.

There is one point where we need to be clear about the consensus argument; namely when deniers lie and deny that a scientific consensus around the role of anthropogenic exists.  As I understand the history, it was the denier side that first started to use arguments around scientific consensus (see e.g. “Merchants of Doubt” https://youtu.be/_P1aAV7OZWM  ), denying that it had built up by the early 2000’s, and instead continued with the lie that there was not, amongst the relevant scientific community, a consensus on the facts of anthropogenic climate change.  (This comes up as a talking point because in terms of messaging to low-information people, the consensus argument is persuasive even if it shouldn’t be.)  My understanding is that Oreskes’s 2004 study came out in response to these claims (https://youtu.be/LNPRgR-2o-A ); this was a survey of abstracts (not people) in the scientific literature, it is replicable (indeed some random dude on the internet purports to have done so: https://norvig.com/oreskes.html ).  As I understand things, her observation that none of the abstracts within the sample considered in that study is consistent with the idea that there is, in fact, what would naturally be called a scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change (if there wasn’t consensus, then one would expect there to be some papers discussing the various alternative ideas).  As far as I can tell, all of the subsequent studies are also consistent with the idea that there is a general consensus within the climate science scientific community that accounting for human CO2 emissions is an essential component of understanding climate change over the last 50 years.  (that is my formulation of what it means to “believe in anthropogenic climate change”).

I’m going to try to preempt what I imagine might be two responses to this discussion.

First attacking the methodology of consensus studies.  Yes if you want you can nit pick their methodology and the squishiness of what they are trying to do, but so what?  The way I look at the Oreskes 2004 study is that they took a bunch of abstracts, read them, and sorted them into (metaphorical) piles, based on the criteria that were spelled out in that paper.  Yes, humans did the reading, and had to make decisions based on instructions presented in natural language.  However, if there was some gross negligence on their part, then there should be follow on studies that indicate a much higher rate of diversity opinion.  Especially today (relative to 2004), these kinds of studies are easy to do.  Where are the observations of collections of abstracts that indicate scientific results that are inconsistent with anthropogenic climate change?  Note that in my opinion it is only worth going down this rabbit hole if the question at hand is the sociological one of “Is there consensus around anthropogenic climate change?”; if the question is “Is there anthropogenic climate change?” then we should be discussing the scientific findings not the scientific community.

The other aspect gets at some of the points I edited out of the quote above—I read those as there being some kind of overwhelming political/financial pressure within the climate scientist community from the “dems”.  If such a thing existed it could conceivably be an explanation of the consensus results.  However, what I don’t get about this hypothesis is how it relates to the fact that the potential for global warming from the CO2 released by burning fossil fuels has a history in the scientific literature that goes back into the 1800’s, and also how this political pressure is being able to be applied across the entire world (non-American scientists buy into this whole global warming thing too).  There is simply no evidence that I’m aware of for some kind of systematic biasing of climate science that is funded by NASA, NOAA, NFS et al. due to political pressure.  (I know Dr. Curry has opinions on this, but I haven’t heard any objectively verifiable claims from her on this point).  I’d contrast this with, say, Exxon-Mobil, where it appears, from internal memos, that they chose to not publicize their scientific findings regarding climate change in order to protect their profits—that’s the kind of evidence of systematic political interference that I’d be looking for in order to support your hypothesis.

[ Edited: 14 January 2018 09:48 by mapadofu]
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  1668
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
14 January 2018 10:39
 

In regards to the OP, Canadian scientist David Suzuki advocates legal protection of the environment.  I am not sure how well known Suzuki is south of the border, but he is a very well known scientist and environmentalist in Canada, in large part due to his long-running TV series, The Nature of Things.

Climate change activism
... In February 2008, he urged McGill University students to speak out against politicians who fail to act on climate change, stating “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.”


David Suzuki Foundation:
https://davidsuzuki.org/

1.  Environmental rights:
Goal: Establish the legal right for all Canadians to live in a healthy environment.
The right to a healthy environment is the simple yet powerful idea that everyone should be able to breathe fresh air, drink clean water and eat safe food. We believe Canadians should have this right constitutionally protected. That’s why we are pursuing legal protections for environmental rights, and in so doing, taking responsibility as stewards for the natural world on which we depend.

Initiative for a federal environmental bill of rights:
https://davidsuzuki.org/project/blue-dot-movement/

[ Edited: 14 January 2018 10:54 by Jan_CAN]
 
 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  2703
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
14 January 2018 13:06
 
mapadofu - 14 January 2018 09:29 AM
Celal - 12 January 2018 01:57 PM

My background is Engineering. None in Climate Sciences. I approach it strictly from a point of an Engineering discipline. There are too many holes in the Global Warming claims to be a real science.  Here are some of these reasons.

1.  Science is not about building consensus. It is about fact.  The Global Warming advocates have used the 97% consensus as their mantra. This is a sign of something seriously wrong.  Just imagine for a moment taking surveys to prove Newton’s theory of gravitation and Einstein’s general relativity. 

I too dislike the argument from consensus, especially when phrased in the form “97% of scientists agree that climate change is real” or similar statements about what scientists believe.  Using the 97% figure in this context implies too much precision on what is an idea that is difficult to quantify (“what set of beliefs actually constitute acknowledging antropogenic climate change?” “who exactly are in the population of scientists?” “what exactly constitutes ‘anthropogenic climate change’?” etc.  Profundia made similar points in an earlier post).  I also agree that this line can be easily caricatured as though we were dealing with a popularity contest.  However, I believe that it is a fair, if not 100% precisely quantifiable, characterization that there is broad consensus among climate scientists that human emissions of CO2 are having a measurable effect on the climate.  I also believe that the fact that this consensus exists, though not dispositive, is a salient fact to consider when looking at this topic.

Glad to know you too feel uneasy about the 97% consensus assertion, albeit for different reasons. My reason was that it wasn’t a consensus at all, rather it was a claim by one individual scientist, John Cook, assuming the role of a mind reader and decided on his own what the authors of the papers he surveyed… had on their minds.

The true consensus would be something like this ...

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

A statement that was signed (by now) more than 32,000 scientists.  They all know what it is they are agreeing to and there is no need for a mind reader.

Here is a video of the International Conference on Climate Change where this petition was discussed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E

——-

Here is a different approach, if indeed the World of businesses, banks believed the Global Warming threat and rising oceans would cause a catastrophic flooding of towns and cities around the southern US, or Europe or Central America,  you would see a legal disclaim in the prospectuses of thousands condominiums projects in Florida alone. The investors would be warned, about the oceans rising, destroying their investments; not to mention Banks would refrain from giving out 30, 40 year mortgages.  In truth, you will never find a single disclaimer in any investments written in 21st Century when the debate has been most heated.  Why? Because, they the don’t believe it.  They are quietly aware of the scam.

[ Edited: 14 January 2018 14:02 by Celal]
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  218
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
14 January 2018 18:33
 
Celal - 14 January 2018 01:06 PM

Glad to know you too feel uneasy about the 97% consensus assertion, albeit for different reasons. My reason was that it wasn’t a consensus at all, rather it was a claim by one individual scientist, John Cook, assuming the role of a mind reader and decided on his own what the authors of the papers he surveyed… had on their minds.

The true consensus would be something like this ...

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

A statement that was signed (by now) more than 32,000 scientists.  They all know what it is they are agreeing to and there is no need for a mind reader.

Here is a video of the International Conference on Climate Change where this petition was discussed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E

——-

Here is a different approach, if indeed the World of businesses, banks believed the Global Warming threat and rising oceans would cause a catastrophic flooding of towns and cities around the southern US, or Europe or Central America,  you would see a legal disclaim in the prospectuses of thousands condominiums projects in Florida alone. The investors would be warned, about the oceans rising, destroying their investments; not to mention Banks would refrain from giving out 30, 40 year mortgages.  In truth, you will never find a single disclaimer in any investments written in 21st Century when the debate has been most heated.  Why? Because, they the don’t believe it.  They are quietly aware of the scam.

Jan_CAN—I lived close enough to the border that as a youth I was able to watch The Nature of Things, so I’m familiar with Dr. Suzuki.

On the sociology: Celal, have you signed the petition?  I assume you are talking about the OISM petition. As I understand it (http://www.petitionproject.org/instructions_for_signing_petition.php) you’d be qualified to do so given your engineering degree.  I am serious about you signing on, given the positions you’ve expressed in this thread and your educational background, it would make sense for you to do so, IMHO.  I too am (probably) qualified, but of course I would not sign it.  According to this http://www.petitionproject.org/how_petition_is_circulated.php, I could/should have received the mailing, but did not (at least I don’t recall having received one, though it was 20 years ago…).  This points out why the existence of this petition is not particularly informative: we have no idea of how many people that would be within the population that this is supposed to be relevant were contacted or otherwise made aware of it, and of those how many opted to sign or not sign and how that relates to their position on the issue (obviously we’d expect a greater number of deniers/skeptics to sign but the proportions matter).  This is over and above the fact that participation in the activity is self-selected.  Presumably people take climate change more seriously, but the “build the death star” petition on whitehouse.gov got about the same number of signatories (http://theweek.com/articles/468757/white-houses-nerddelighting-death-star-petition-response), so I don’t think that finding 30k people to sign onto something is a particularly high bar in a nation the size of the US (it looks like it is supposed to be limited to Americans—I wonder if that includes Canadians).

On the financial side of things, what makes you think that banks are not adjusting their lending practices to account for the effects of climate change?  I don’t know what kinds of “legal disclaims” you’d expect to see in real estate contracts, and how we’d know whether they are there or not in any systematic way.  I have no information either way on this, so please let me know what kinds of studies/analysis demonstrate your case.

Though this isn’t exactly in terms of specific real estate development or transactions, isn’t Moody’s accounting for exposure to climate change related risks https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/moody-s-warns-cities-to-address-climate-risks-or-face-downgrades the kind of thing we’d expect to see if (some of) the financial sector were starting to take more full account of climate change? (link to the abstract of the report at Moody’s: https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Climate-change-is-forecast-to-heighten-US-exposure-to—PR_376056 )

[ Edited: 15 January 2018 09:25 by mapadofu]
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  7453
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
15 January 2018 12:05
 
Celal - 14 January 2018 01:06 PM

Here is a different approach, if indeed the World of businesses, banks believed the Global Warming threat and rising oceans would cause a catastrophic flooding of towns and cities around the southern US, or Europe or Central America,  you would see a legal disclaim in the prospectuses of thousands condominiums projects in Florida alone. The investors would be warned, about the oceans rising, destroying their investments; not to mention Banks would refrain from giving out 30, 40 year mortgages.  In truth, you will never find a single disclaimer in any investments written in 21st Century when the debate has been most heated.  Why? Because, they the don’t believe it.  They are quietly aware of the scam.

https://www.citymetric.com/horizons/why-are-so-many-people-still-living-flood-plains-1901

quote from this article: -  A growing problem

“Yet history is not the only reason why flood-prone locations are overpopulated. For one thing, rising sea levels and a changing climate are putting more cities’ residents at risk. And what’s more, new homes are still being built in flood-prone areas around the world.

This is largely because private developers do not bear the full social cost of building on cheap land on flood plains. Instead, governments typically foot much of the bill for building and maintaining flood defences.”

 

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  7453
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
17 January 2018 17:39
 

Could - for example - “climate change denial” be considered treasonous?

“The President of the United States has become a leading security threat to the United States.”  -  David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker Magazine

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/the-increasing-unfitness-of-donald-trump

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6020
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
18 January 2018 18:25
 

Celal:

They are quietly aware of the scam.

For the sake of discussion, what is the goal of this scam?

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  7453
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
19 January 2018 10:18
 

http://time.com/4998660/bill-nye-trump-climate-change/

quote:  “Nye told TIME ahead of the documentary’s release that he’s optimistic about the future of science in America as younger generations replace their predecessors in places of power. But still, the incident — like many scenes in the film — is a wakeup call for viewers. “My biggest concern is that this idea that one’s own opinion is given the same weight as what’s scientifically understood,” Nye tells TIME. “We want to be able to get people to evaluate evidence and think critically about events and phenomena they see in nature.”

 
 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  2703
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
19 January 2018 12:27
 
unsmoked - 19 January 2018 10:18 AM

http://time.com/4998660/bill-nye-trump-climate-change/

quote:  “Nye told TIME ahead of the documentary’s release that he’s optimistic about the future of science in America as younger generations replace their predecessors in places of power. But still, the incident — like many scenes in the film — is a wakeup call for viewers. “My biggest concern is that this idea that one’s own opinion is given the same weight as what’s scientifically understood,” Nye tells TIME. “We want to be able to get people to evaluate evidence and think critically about events and phenomena they see in nature.”

Who the hell cares what some guy named Bill Nye thinks about Science?  That is the problem with you guys. He has nothing more than a bachelors degree in Mechanical Engineering.  He is a TV guy in a bow tie who taught scientific concepts to children in the 1990s. That does not make him a scientist.  I have 3 degrees in Engineering including PhD, yet I don’t consider myself a scientist for I’ve not dedicated myself as a research contributor to sciences. What qualifications does Bill Nye have? None.

You guys get your scientific information from sources like Politician Al Gore and a comedian in a lab coat. 

Here Bill Nye debating Global Warming with an actual Scientist. Notice if you will,  how stupid Bill Nye the science guy sounds!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORsLO8b7hcw

 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  2703
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
19 January 2018 12:56
 
icehorse - 18 January 2018 06:25 PM

Celal:

They are quietly aware of the scam.

For the sake of discussion, what is the goal of this scam?

I think you are asking a very poor question.  Not interested in the personal wealth gains of people like Al Gore who had declared his net worth in 2000 to be $1.5M to the present time of $200M-$300M. This is a time waster and distraction.

The kinds of controversies that exist around Global Warming is typically confined to politics. People like Dr Judith Curry I referenced earlier has been vilified for her challenges to the Global Warming narrative. She isn’t alone, many other scientists have been attacked and persecuted academically for having contrary views to the narrative than what has been driven by the left. In Political World, disagreements are common and attacks are par for the course. But Science! 

The question you should be asking is this: 

Premise - Scientific field is supposed to be opposite of political field, where in science you are led by the inquiry and evidence to conclusions. Universities are supposed to be places of unfettered research, freedom of investigations, honest and open debate, diverse perspectives, etc.

Question should be asked is why the scientific field is looking more like political field in the area of Climate Change?  If you ask the right questions, it is easy to see what is driving it.

 

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6020
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
19 January 2018 19:36
 
Celal - 19 January 2018 12:56 PM
icehorse - 18 January 2018 06:25 PM

Celal:

They are quietly aware of the scam.

For the sake of discussion, what is the goal of this scam?

I think you are asking a very poor question.  Not interested in the personal wealth gains of people like Al Gore who had declared his net worth in 2000 to be $1.5M to the present time of $200M-$300M. This is a time waster and distraction.

The kinds of controversies that exist around Global Warming is typically confined to politics. People like Dr Judith Curry I referenced earlier has been vilified for her challenges to the Global Warming narrative. She isn’t alone, many other scientists have been attacked and persecuted academically for having contrary views to the narrative than what has been driven by the left. In Political World, disagreements are common and attacks are par for the course. But Science! 

The question you should be asking is this: 

Premise - Scientific field is supposed to be opposite of political field, where in science you are led by the inquiry and evidence to conclusions. Universities are supposed to be places of unfettered research, freedom of investigations, honest and open debate, diverse perspectives, etc.

Question should be asked is why the scientific field is looking more like political field in the area of Climate Change?  If you ask the right questions, it is easy to see what is driving it.

Wait, what? You’re the one who claimed it was a scam. How I can be asking the wrong question.

Second, Al Gore? For the sake of discussion, let’s say that Al Gore created a huge scam to enrich himself, seems implausible, but let’s run with that idea… how about for all of the zillions of scientists who are claiming climate change? What’s their incentive to create or support such a scam?

As for inquiry and evidence, are you saying there isn’t scads of it? Now I would agree that modeling and simulating climate and weather is a daunting task, and that we have a long way to go before we’ve perfected those fields. But we often act based on imperfect models and imperfect data, right? Think of healthcare, we don’t wait for perfect solutions before we start tackling problems the best we can. Given the potentially catastrophic downsides of global warming why would we cool our heels awaiting the advent of the computing technology needed to create more perfect models?

I think that Occam would say that what’s FAR more plausible is that Big Energy would do everything in its power to corrupt politicians and obfuscate the situation. That’s the real scam.

 
 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  2703
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
20 January 2018 11:17
 
icehorse - 19 January 2018 07:36 PM

Second, Al Gore? For the sake of discussion, let’s say that Al Gore created a huge scam to enrich himself, seems implausible, but let’s run with that idea… how about for all of the zillions of scientists who are claiming climate change? What’s their incentive to create or support such a scam?

The bad phrasing you employ in bold is how muddled the thinking is.  “97 percent of scientists agree” meme has been so wildly successful, people - as you have demonstrated above - people no longer think about what they say anymore. They simply parrot what they hear.

The bold text says nothing controversial.  Of Course, Climate changes and it always did. Even I, as a non-scientist know that for a fact. Somehow you have adopted one of the facts of Nature, namely change of climate as a proof of your claim.  That is sloppy!

So, the question is not whether Climate changes, because it does, rather the questions are;

a] Just how much warming is occurring? We know that not as much as predicted.
b] How much of that warming is being caused by humans? Scientists do not claim humans have no affect on climate. The existence of trees has an influence on the climate system, and it is entirely reasonable to assume that humans do as well.
c] Is there proof that Humans are the “primary” cause of climate change today? No.  This is where scientists disagree and where the controversy is.  There is no scientific consensus on this question.

Ice, “scientific consensus” is bogus and even if true - it proves nothing!  Can still be wrong because that is not how science operates. I will explain.

Two Australian doctors in 2005, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall were awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize in medicine for their work on peptic ulcers. Until then they were being shunned and ridiculed at Medical conferences for the theory that peptic ulcers were caused by bacteria, instead of the widely published medical papers that simply assumed that ulcers were caused by stress or spicy food. If you wanted to score points, you could have claimed 99% of the papers published agree that ulcers indeed caused by stress or spicy food. And 99% of the papers published were wrong.

In the area of Climate change, the claims are even shakier. Not to mention, there is no consensus Humans are the “primary” cause of climate change today. Because there is no way to measure that today.

 

 
‹ First  < 17 18 19 20 >