4 ms·

This scientific consensus already made several heavily wrong estimates. And mind you, we don't have a working, proven model of climate change. We only have some

by dozzie 11y ago

This scientific consensus already made several heavily wrong estimates. And mind you, we don't have a working, proven model of climate change. We only have some speculations based on some proxy variables, and those speculations tend to ignore most basic physics or statistics (e.g. discussing changes of temperature that are way below observational errors currently possible, or focus on marginal CO2 concentration, while H2O concentration is larger of orders of magnitude, and H2O has, for instance, much higher thermal capacity).

anexprogrammer 11y ago
I would far rather we incorrectly rushed to decarbonise and replace with renewables than assume the science is wrong and have an oh fuck we're doomed moment in 30 or 40 years. I won't care, I'll probably be dead by then. My children would. Decarbonising would remove many other pollutants and particulates from the atmosphere, and should lead to health benefits like reduced asthma in cities.
- explorigin 11y ago
  > Decarbonising would remove many other pollutants and particulates from the atmosphere, and should lead to health benefits like reduced asthma in cities. But it's not all benefit. In rushing to decarbonize, we use alternative energy sources. A lot of battery and solar technology uses heavy metals that break down and seep into the water supply when they are improperly discarded. There are no magic bullet answers, the only solution is a holistic one and so far, only the climate scientists have won the attention of the politicians. Validity arguments aside, it makes you wonder if there's an ulterior motive.
cel1ne 11y ago
So there are thousands of climate scientists which came, over and over again, to the same conclusion: that the extent of current heating is caused by co2 release, which is caused by coal-burning by mankind. Those have all made several mistakes and continue to make them and the 15 scientists or so who are of a different opinion are probably right? Is that what you are saying?
- dozzie 11y ago
  We had thousands of astrology and magic practicioners. It didn't make astrology or magic true in any way. You know what makes modern physics true? Falsifiability and verifiability. You build a theory, make predictions, develop an experiment, and then conduct the experiment, multiple times. Climatology stops after the first two. Granted, astronomy and cosmology operate in similar way to climatology, but we don't establish world-scale policies based on astronomy.
  - Aeolos 11y ago
    > You know what makes modern physics true? Falsifiability and verifiability. You build a theory, make predictions, develop an experiment, and then conduct the experiment, multiple times. Climatology stops after the first two. This is, obviously and demonstrably, wrong. The data is out there, the methodologies are out there, and there is tons of related open-source software. You can conduct your own experiments and come to your own conclusions. This guy [1][2], for example, did, and imagine what: he independently verified what 99% of climate scientists have been saying. Why don't you give it a go? Put your money where your mouth is and see for yourself what is true and what isn't. Edit: to the poster below, the data is public, just a quick google search away. For example [3]. [1] http://forums.sandiegouniontribune.com/showpost.php?p=5337377&postcount=222 http://forums.sandiegouniontribune.com/showpost.php?p=533737... [2] http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/?comments=1&post=30509481# http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thorough... [3] ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
    - dozzie 11y ago
      I don't think we're on the same page. First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature. Next, he only charted temperatures. This doesn't prove anything related to carbon concentration by itself, and we don't have proven models to have a causality implied one way or another. (Proven with analogous strictness and confidence as the theory of gravity.) And finally, I don't claim there is no change to the climate whatsoever. Quite the contrary; humanity has seen the climate to change over its recent history (few hundred years). I just doubt highly that the change is caused by human carbon emissions. And personally, I think it's really arrogant to assume that humanity is powerful enough to change the climate of the whole planet at this point.
rorykoehler 11y ago
Regardless I love breathing in the shit air in my city when I go on a bike ride. It's really nice. No problem here, things are perfect, move along.
coldtea 11y ago
>This scientific consensus already made several heavily wrong estimates. So we should trust something else over that?

by dozzie 11y ago

anexprogrammer 11y ago

I would far rather we incorrectly rushed to decarbonise and replace with renewables than assume the science is wrong and have an oh fuck we're doomed moment in 30 or 40 years. I won't care, I'll probably be dead by then. My children would. Decarbonising would remove many other pollutants and particulates from the atmosphere, and should lead to health benefits like reduced asthma in cities.

explorigin 11y ago
> Decarbonising would remove many other pollutants and particulates from the atmosphere, and should lead to health benefits like reduced asthma in cities. But it's not all benefit. In rushing to decarbonize, we use alternative energy sources. A lot of battery and solar technology uses heavy metals that break down and seep into the water supply when they are improperly discarded. There are no magic bullet answers, the only solution is a holistic one and so far, only the climate scientists have won the attention of the politicians. Validity arguments aside, it makes you wonder if there's an ulterior motive.

cel1ne 11y ago

So there are thousands of climate scientists which came, over and over again, to the same conclusion: that the extent of current heating is caused by co2 release, which is caused by coal-burning by mankind. Those have all made several mistakes and continue to make them and the 15 scientists or so who are of a different opinion are probably right? Is that what you are saying?

dozzie 11y ago
We had thousands of astrology and magic practicioners. It didn't make astrology or magic true in any way. You know what makes modern physics true? Falsifiability and verifiability. You build a theory, make predictions, develop an experiment, and then conduct the experiment, multiple times. Climatology stops after the first two. Granted, astronomy and cosmology operate in similar way to climatology, but we don't establish world-scale policies based on astronomy.
- Aeolos 11y ago
  > You know what makes modern physics true? Falsifiability and verifiability. You build a theory, make predictions, develop an experiment, and then conduct the experiment, multiple times. Climatology stops after the first two. This is, obviously and demonstrably, wrong. The data is out there, the methodologies are out there, and there is tons of related open-source software. You can conduct your own experiments and come to your own conclusions. This guy [1][2], for example, did, and imagine what: he independently verified what 99% of climate scientists have been saying. Why don't you give it a go? Put your money where your mouth is and see for yourself what is true and what isn't. Edit: to the poster below, the data is public, just a quick google search away. For example [3]. [1] http://forums.sandiegouniontribune.com/showpost.php?p=5337377&postcount=222 http://forums.sandiegouniontribune.com/showpost.php?p=533737... [2] http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/?comments=1&post=30509481# http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thorough... [3] ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
  - dozzie 11y ago
    I don't think we're on the same page. First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature. Next, he only charted temperatures. This doesn't prove anything related to carbon concentration by itself, and we don't have proven models to have a causality implied one way or another. (Proven with analogous strictness and confidence as the theory of gravity.) And finally, I don't claim there is no change to the climate whatsoever. Quite the contrary; humanity has seen the climate to change over its recent history (few hundred years). I just doubt highly that the change is caused by human carbon emissions. And personally, I think it's really arrogant to assume that humanity is powerful enough to change the climate of the whole planet at this point.

rorykoehler 11y ago

Regardless I love breathing in the shit air in my city when I go on a bike ride. It's really nice. No problem here, things are perfect, move along.

coldtea 11y ago

>This scientific consensus already made several heavily wrong estimates. So we should trust something else over that?