101–110 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That means you Galileo. Who was not the only one, there were many more in his age and time, and was backed by measurable facts.
But they were slapped with the "* denier" label of the time heretic and either executed, exiled, or put on house arrest for life by the "good" government scientists.
Right now very close to my house there is a gas and oil storage facility and a pipeline connected to it. The city, under pressure from activist groups, has declared a climate emergency. And yet, nobody has connected the dots on the fact that if we get off fossil fuels in a timely manner, that facility is going to close . Nobody is planning for it or expecting it. The company is not facing higher insurance rates and i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, the "environment movement" as you call it is obviously funded by the governments looking for an excuse to raise taxes. It's the governments giving away grant money to fund the "scientific consensus" (another ridiculous term). Meanwhile, this has nothing to do with "saving the world", only with the sovereign debt crisis. United States, EU and Japan are dead broke, they will try every ploy to raise taxes and steal…
What's ridiculous about a scientific consensus? It's a trend in the publication of scientific facts. Show me a better way of unearthing what the data is showing than extrapolating from publications of hundreds of independent research. Especially when you follow it with a steam of unfounded speculations.
But the public at large, politicians, and most business interest desire the comfort of facts, so people have a tendency to want to believe things are more settled and concrete than they may actually be.
I am grateful, by contrast, that my med school professors frequently declared “ten years from now, perhaps half of what we’re teaching you today will have been proven incorrect”. While half is an exaggeration, I’ve certainly been astonished at how much has changed so dramatically in such a short time.
Of course we just have to do the best we can with what we know at any particular time. So if the climate consensus is pointing one way, by all means let’s follow the bread crumbs. But overconfidence can be a dangerous comfort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need to distinguish between the scientific base, and activism through a particular political lens. The latter can be hysterical, that doesn’t have any relevance to the former.
Of course it has relevance to the former. Today’s science is highly politicized, and driven by ideology rather than objective observation. What else can be expected in a government-grant-driven system.
> Clarifying the institutional dynamics of the CCCM can aid our understanding of how anthropogenic climate change has been turned into a controversy rather than a scientific fact in the U.S. I know how unpopular this comment will be in some circles, but I feel I have to say it anyway: Anthropogenic climate change is not a “scientific fact”. It is a theory, and (to the best of my knowledge) an untestable one at that.…
> Anthropogenic climate change is not a “scientific fact”. It is absolutely a scientific fact. > and (to the best of my knowledge) an untestable one at that You have no knowledge, so little it's hard to believe that you've in good faith ever looked it up. Foundation: the Earth is an open system, with the Sun providing the primary energy input and radiation into space being the thermal sink. The average energy of the…
I have no issue with your three points. In fact this simple energy balance model is the primary reason I believe in anthropogenic climate change.
But your claim that the three points in combination makes anthropogenic climate change a “scientific fact” is... just unscientific. How can you know what the climate would have been like had there not been any human activity?
> And yet, for some reason, the idea persists in some peoples' minds that climate change is up for debate, or that climate change is no big deal. Hold it right there. Anthropogenic climate change (not just that the earth is warming, but that we are responsible) is a scientific hypothesis . Like all hypotheses, it cannot be proven true, only disproven by contradictory evidence. Doubt is a critical element in testing a…
The other side is where scientific debate is happening, the other side injects sponsored misinformation for the public consumption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, NASA was funded to collect the actual data until Trump arrived. The facts don’t care if you don’t like them and they don’t go away if you cover your eyes like a child and pretend they’re not there.
The facts are that nobody knows how climate works and there is no proof that humanity controls climate. The facts are that there is a large propaganda machine in the media using dirty tactics (e.g. a mentally ill child) to spread fearmongering and doomsday bullcrap. The facts are that there is big money behind this climate religion that has nothing to do with helping the environment (reality check: carbon dioxide is…
The fact that we do not have much historical data and good verifiable models to understand how the planet climate behaves under large changes in parameters (CO2 emission, etc.) makes it even more important and urgent to act. We never know at what moment the system will cross the threshold, and damage becomes irreversible, and planet destruction accelerates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anthropogenic climate change is not a “scientific fact”. It is absolutely a scientific fact. > and (to the best of my knowledge) an untestable one at that You have no knowledge, so little it's hard to believe that you've in good faith ever looked it up. Foundation: the Earth is an open system, with the Sun providing the primary energy input and radiation into space being the thermal sink. The average energy of the…
I guess the tone of your message reflects what you want science to become. ;P I have no issue with your three points. In fact this simple energy balance model is the primary reason I believe in anthropogenic climate change. But your claim that the three points in combination makes anthropogenic climate change a “scientific fact” is... just unscientific. How can you know what the climate would have been like had there…
It reflects that this is as certain as literally anything else in science, and that you are actively aiding in hurting people. It is reasonable to be irritated about that.
>But your claim that the three points in combination makes anthropogenic climate change a “scientific fact” is... just unscientific.
No. WTF? Are you some post-modernist who thinks all reality is subjective or something? CO2 traps heat. There is rapidly rising CO2. It is due to humans. And it is causing the temperature to go up. This will change the climate. That's the definition of scientific fact.
>How can you know what the climate would have been like had there not been any human activity?
Are you proposing that all the fossil fuels we've burned would have spontaneously migrated up through bedrock and combusted themselves? Because if not than without human activity they'd still be down there, there wouldn't be any of that CO2 in the atmosphere, which means that extra heat wouldn't be trapped, which means the world wouldn't be warming in the same way.
In fact there is far more well established scientific knowledge about that counterfactual based on analysis of solar cycles and so on, and you could bother yourself to go research it if you were really interested instead of smugly proclaiming that everyone else is wrong based on your "feelings". But none of that is relevant to the question of whether anthropogenic global warming is scientific fact and whether pumping tons more energy into the atmosphere will result in "climate changing".
Sure there is. But doesn't the title of the article read like nazi era propaganda? Not very professional or scientific or to call anyone on the other side a 'climate denier'. I'm sort of in that camp but am not paid and kind of dont mind debating it
Yes, and you're going to get down voted below the fold. But it's historical dangerous to say "well ALL the good scientists and government scientists think X is true. Anyone who disagrees is on the take." That means you Galileo.
Sure there is. But doesn't the title of the article read like nazi era propaganda? Not very professional or scientific or to call anyone on the other side a 'climate denier'. I'm sort of in that camp but am not paid and kind of dont mind debating it
Did you actually just label a decently researched article quoting The Guardian and PBS as Nazi propaganda? Wow, that's a new low for HN.