625 sats \ 32 replies \ @Lost_dogz 5 Feb \ on: The Complexity of Climate Change: The Scientific Method and Its Challenges science
The weird thing about that opinion article is that it says although 99.9% of scientists agree on man made global warming, there are still 2 sides of the debate. But there really aren't, at least not two equal sides. There's also no substance, just vague statements like "it's complex, we would be humble", implying that climate scientists aren't. Which is kind of rich, coming from an economist...
Outside of the US, the debate concluded in the 1950s and people talk about climate change with the same certainty as gravity
Outside of the US, the debate concluded in the 1950s and people talk about climate change with the same certainty as gravity
That's not a good thing, since predictions based on gravity are extraordinarily precise and accurate, while predictions based on climate change are widely dispersed and highly biased.
Which is kind of rich, coming from an economist
Interdisciplinary pot shots are one of life's small pleasures. Epistemological humility is different from a humble personality. More of both is usually good.
99.9% of scientists agree on man made global warming
A lot can be lost in statements like that. It is true that virtually all climate scientists believe humans add heat into the environment. It is also true that there is a lot of disagreement about the relative importance of different contributors and the overall size of human impact.
reply
Solar activity
reply
Do you agree with the hockey stick graph generated by Michael Mann?
reply
Bottom line is human freedom is being curtailed on the basis that a phenomenon 88% attributable to nature can be augmented by said curtailment.
We really have to eat bugs and love it over 12%? Hell no! Ammo up because Klaus needs to be exposed to lead.
reply
Is net zero viable and desirable?
So, serf, what does your life look like in 2050?
No air travel
No beef or lamb
No concrete
No international ocean freight shipping
Small electric cars only
No new roads
No oil or gas fired heating or hot water
Colder rooms in winter
Border controls / tariffs based on emissions
More manure, less fertiliser in agriculture
Tripled electricity production, mostly from bird choppers
reply
reply
reply
Thanks, another excellent example of how you've been manipulated. The cover on the left is fake and has been going around for 10+ years. It's an edited version of the april 2007 cover, where the real headline was "The Global Warming Survival Guide"
Times response to the meme:
https://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/
reply
reply
Predictable that you'd double down on the propaganda when you've just been debunked
reply
reply
Predictably you said predictable and debunked.
reply
There was no climate debate before 1960. How can there be a consensus when there was no debate or research?
reply
FFS man, please go back to school
Arrhenius was almost spot on on radiative forcing in the late 1800s.
Fourier, Foote, Tyndall? I suppose those names don't ring any bells? That's all 19th century physics you get in early high school
reply
19th century physics you get in early high school
Not in America you don't
reply
deleted by author
reply
reply
You are confusing climate change and global warming.
No one says global warming anymore because it has been effectively debunked.
No one says global warming anymore because it has been effectively debunked.
Ergo, big brother has employed new speak.
Climate change lacks a coherent definition which is useful for scientifically illiterate activists.
reply
I don’t remember these names from AP Physics Mechanics or E&M
reply
Not knowing those names while trying to have a debate about climate change is like trying to debate relativity with someone who doesn't know who Einstein was
It's OK to be ignorant, but maybe be a bit more humble about it
reply
reply
Since you are the opposite of ignorant, can you predict when the world will end? When is the next catastrophe?
reply
deleted by author
reply
deleted by author
reply
Temperature decreased from 1940 to 1970. Global cooling was all the rage in 1969
reply
It did, because of soot (the same climate science explains this). Global cooling was never a rage
reply
reply
Those people are scientifically illiterate
reply
There was no climate change in the 1950s.
Anyone who thinks climate change is scientific like gravity is an idiot
reply
In 1954 the fossil fuel backed "Air Pollution Foundation" funded some of the most foundational climate change research, including Keeling's early work...